| 1 |
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:52:20PM +0100, John Mylchreest wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:46 -0700, Greg KH wrote: |
| 3 |
> > If we can move away from some of our devfs-like names, we stand to |
| 4 |
> > reclaim a lot of memory from everyone's machines. As an example, if we |
| 5 |
> > drop all of the tty/pts/vc/vcc symlinks, and just go with the default |
| 6 |
> > kernel name, we save 2.5Mb of space in tempfs/ramfs. I've done this on |
| 7 |
> > my machines and everything seems to work just fine (it looks like |
| 8 |
> > everything that was trying to use a tty node was just using the symlink |
| 9 |
> > anyway.) |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > So, anyone have any objections to me changing the default udev naming |
| 12 |
> > scheme in this manner? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> No objections here. I've been waiting fort his move for a little while |
| 15 |
> now. The only real problems will be with those 2.4 (devfs) users who |
| 16 |
> refuse to move, maybe this is good enough incentive. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
As the default devfs configuration in gentoo is to use the LSB naming |
| 19 |
scheme, only people who will have customized their devfs configuration |
| 20 |
would have issues. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Oh, and there seem to be some people that rely on the devfs naming |
| 23 |
scheme for block devices in /etc/fstab, for some odd reason. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Anyway, I don't think this will break any devfs usages, they can keep |
| 26 |
using 2.4 and devfs all they want, the rest of the world will move on :) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
thanks, |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
greg k-h |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives