Followup to: <14581.51875.590781.619057@wire.cadcamlab.org>
By author: Peter Samuelson <peter@cadcamlab.org>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> > BTW, _what_ was that wrong with using autofs for that instead of
> > reinventing the wheel?
>
> Perhaps because adding a devfsd mechanism to devfs is more lightweight
> on the kernel side. fs/autofs/ is 68 blocks on my box, fs/devfs/ is
> just under twice that. I know obj side != source size, but I'd guess a
> lot less than half of devfs is devoted to the devfsd protocol....
>
Same for the autofs protocol. Most of it is there to manage the funny
races that you have to deal with in order to allow the filesystem to
be mounted on top of before it is "accessible!"
-hpa
-- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."- 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 - 21:00:21 EST