On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 01:22:24AM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 13:52 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 03:55:45PM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > > > On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:46 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > > Ok, now that devfs is removed from the 2.6 kernel tree[1], I think it's > > > > time to start to revisit some of the /dev naming rules that we currently > > > > are living with[2]. > > > > > > > > To start with, the 061 version of udev offers a big memory savings if > > > > you use the "default" kernel name of a device[3]. If you do that, it > > > > does > > > > not create a file in its database in /dev/.udevdb/ > > > > > > > > If we can move away from some of our devfs-like names, we stand to > > > > reclaim a lot of memory from everyone's machines. As an example, if we > > > > drop all of the tty/pts/vc/vcc symlinks, and just go with the default > > > > kernel name, we save 2.5Mb of space in tempfs/ramfs. I've done this on > > > > my machines and everything seems to work just fine (it looks like > > > > everything that was trying to use a tty node was just using the symlink > > > > anyway.) > > > > > > > > So, anyone have any objections to me changing the default udev naming > > > > scheme in this manner? > > > > > > > > > > Fine with me. I assume we will need to keep the rcscript support for > > > those die-hard 2.4 users still, but hopefully we can eventually drop > > > that as well. > > > > What rcscript support? > > > > Err, sorry, all the crap in /sbin/rc ...
Heh, yes. While looking in there, I was wondering if anyone would object to splitting the udev and devfs stuff out of the main rc script, like other parts have been split out? That way I could bundle the udev portions in the udev package and then keep them up to date (like the "save modified device nodes logic") ? thanks, greg k-h -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
