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? > > Next up, that loony block device naming scheme (more on that later...) > > thanks, > > greg k-h
Sorry to only reply to this now, but i saw a mail of you talking about ndevfs. will that go into 2.6.13? not that i use devfs, 'cause i don't, i'm just curious.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
