Re: devfs - why not ?

From: Richard Gooch (rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca)
Date: Thu Apr 13 2000 - 12:48:04 EST


Peter Samuelson writes:
>
> I will not get draw into another devfs flamewar.
> I will not get draw into another devfs flamewar.
> I will not get draw into another devfs flamewar.
> I will not get draw into another devfs flamewar.
> I will not get draw into another devfs flamewar.
> I will not get draw into another devfs flamewar.
> I will not get draw into another devfs flamewar.
> I will not get draw into another devfs flamewar.
> I will not get draw into another devfs flamewar.
> I will not get draw into another devfs flamewar.
> I will not get draw into another devfs flamewar.
> I will not get draw into another devfs flamewar.
> Sh*t.

Tell me about it. You know, whatever happened to accepting the
umpire's decision?

> 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....

Correct.

                                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 - 21:00:22 EST