public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Robert Love <rml@novell.com>
To: Mike Bell <mike@mikebell.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>
Subject: Re: devfs vs udev FAQ from the other side
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:08:38 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1126746518.9652.60.camel@phantasy> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050915005105.GD15017@mikebell.org>

On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 17:51 -0700, Mike Bell wrote:

> devfs advantages over udev:
> 1) devfs is smaller
>   Hey, I ran the benchmarks, I have numbers, something Greg never gave.

Actually, there are not many numbers in this email.

>   Took an actual devfs system of mine and disabled devfs from the
>   kernel, then enabled hotplug and sysfs for udev to run.  make clean
>   and surprise surprise, kernel is much bigger. Enable netlink stuff and
>   it's bigger still. udev is only smaller if like Greg you don't count
>   its kernel components against it, even if they wouldn't otherwise need
>   to be enabled. Difference is to the tune of 604164 on udev and 588466
>   on devfs. Maybe not a lot in some people's books, but a huge
>   difference from the claims of other people that devfs is actually
>   bigger.

What modern system, though, could survive without hotplug and sysfs and
netlink?  You need to have those components, you want those features,
anyhow.

So your comparison is unrealistic.

Your user-space argument is better.  Is ndevfs not sufficient?

	Robert Love



  reply	other threads:[~2005-09-15  1:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-09-15  0:51 devfs vs udev FAQ from the other side Mike Bell
2005-09-15  1:08 ` Robert Love [this message]
2005-09-15  2:09   ` Mike Bell
2005-09-15  3:17     ` Robert Love
2005-09-15  4:13       ` Mike Bell
2005-09-15  2:13   ` David Lang
2005-09-15  3:07     ` Dmitry Torokhov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1126746518.9652.60.camel@phantasy \
    --to=rml@novell.com \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=gregkh@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mike@mikebell.org \
    --cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox