Patrick Mochel writes:
>
> On Tue, 7 May 2002, Richard Gooch wrote:
>
> > Patrick Mochel writes:
> > > Oh, and it's with a modern, clean filesystem, 1/5 the size of devfs.
> >
> > The size argument is not an issue. I've already said that devfs will
> > shrink a lot once I move tree management from my own code to the VFS.
>
> I agree 100%. However, I think that move will be very painful. I
> tried to do it a couple of months ago, and there were so many
> interdependencies and oddities that I gave up after about 6 hours.
Oh, it's certainly more that 6 hours of work. But it *will* get done.
> > At that point devfs will mostly be:
> > - an API
> > - a way fo supporting the devfsd protocol.
>
> I argue that you shouldn't need a separate daemon. We already have
> the /sbin/hotplug interface. It's simple and sweet. We shouldn't
> need to rely on an entirely separate daemon.
The devfsd protocol is more lightweight. Plus it doesn't require
fork(2)+execve(2) overheads. And more importantly, you can capture
lookup() events.
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.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 07 2002 - 22:00:31 EST