Ricky Beam writes:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, George Bonser wrote:
> >> (mounting it under /devfs instead of /dev) and there still seem to
> >> be many people opposed to devfs.
>
> And I'm one of them...
Here we go again.
> >> So, I know the pro side of devfs, but I would like to read up on
> >> the objections raised so I can make a judgement for myself.
> >
> >While this subject is up ... is there any problem with linking from /dev
> >to /devfs ?
>
> I don't see any problem with it as long as your system can live
> without any valid entries in /dev until devfs is mounted. Of
> course, the primary reason for devfs is "all the wasted space" from
> over a thousand nodes in /dev.
Of course, you haven't really listened or read the FAQ. I don't see
that as the primary reason for devfs.
> Each one uses one FS block (4k in my case) to store a few bytes of info.
> The symlinks, while using more of the inode, still waste an entire FS block.
>
> The answer to this problem is a fs capable of storing "non-files" more
> efficiently. Devfs is doing this in kernel memory (in a fashion I'm not
> real fond of -- see below.)
>
> >I mean, think of a Solaris
>
> That's my main objection to devfs... let's see, do I use:
> dd if=foo of=/devices/sbus@1f,0/SUNW,fdtwo@f,1400000:c,raw
Obviously not on Linux. It doesn't exist.
> or
> dd if=foo of=/dev/fd0c
>
> (There are more explicitly complicated examples, but that makes the
> point.)
Does it?
> If you wanted to be a purist, modules need a new function for
> reporting devfs information... init_module, delete_module(?),
> devfs_module? That certainly fixes one problem (and kills the need
> for devfsd.)
Nope. You've missed the reasons.
Regards,
Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 15 2000 - 21:00:19 EST