Re: udev sysfs docs Re: State of devfs in 2.6?

Witukind
2003-12-10T21:32:14Z

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:53:03 -0500
Ed Sweetman <ed.sweetman@wmich.edu> wrote:

> Ed Sweetman wrote:
> > Witukind wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:33:24 +0100
> >> mru@kth.se (Måns Rullgård) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Witukind <witukind@nsbm.kicks-ass.org> writes:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:39:32 +0100 mru@kth.se (Måns Rullgård)
> >wrote:>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Is there a specific case for which people want this feature?
> >>>>>> Offhand it seems like a slightly odd thing to ask for...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I believe the original motivation for module autoloading was to
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> save> memory by unloading modules when their devices were unused.
> >
> >>>> Loading> them automatically on demand made for less trouble for
> >>>> users, who> didn't have to run modprobe manually to use the sound
> >>>> card, or> whatever. This could still be a good thing in embedded
> >>>> systems.>
> >
> > the biggest advantage from modules is the ability to enable/disable
> > devices with different initialization configurations without
> > rebooting, including the use of devices that aren't present during
> > boot or may be added to a system that cant be put down to reboot.
> > Embedded systems usually do not change, that's just part of being
> > embedded, modules dont really make sense there unless things like
> > filesystems and non-device modules never get used at the same time
> > and memory is limited such that 100KB actually matters.
> >
> >
> >>>> I don't see why it wouldn't be a good thing for regular systems
> >>>> also. Saving memory is usually a good idea.
> >
> >
> > True, but how about we start being good memory users where it counts
> > the most, like gui's/userspace land and then worry about the sub 1MB
> > usage that kernels exist in.
> >
> >>> The biggest modules are about 100k. Saving 100k of 1 GB doesn't
> >>> really seem worth any effort.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't have 1 Gb of memory. On my laptop with 16 mb RAM saving
> >100k > is worth
> >> the effort.
> >
>
> Blah, scratch this.
> > Then why do you use a sylpheed, which is gtk instead of something in
> > a terminal that uses much less memory (doesn't require xfree86,
> > which you're probably also using instead of tinyX) and toolkits,
> > pixmaps etc.
> > Obviously, 100k is not worth _your_ effort.
>
> And of course that's all assuming you're using your laptop to write
> and send email. Which you probably wouldn't be doing on a 16MB
> laptop...probably wouldn't be doing anything on a 16MB laptop. But
> anyway, the rest of what i was talking about is ok.

Well you can do a lot of things on this laptop and Wingdows 95, although I'd
prefer to be able to do as much or even more using Linux with it.

--
Jabber: heimdal@jabber.org