Re: devfs - why not ?

[Richard Gooch]

Peter Samuelson writes:
> 
> I will not get draw into another devfs flamewar.
> I will not get draw into another devfs flamewar.
> I will not get draw into another devfs flamewar.
> I will not get draw into another devfs flamewar.
> I will not get draw into another devfs flamewar.
> I will not get draw into another devfs flamewar.
> I will not get draw into another devfs flamewar.
> I will not get draw into another devfs flamewar.
> I will not get draw into another devfs flamewar.
> I will not get draw into another devfs flamewar.
> I will not get draw into another devfs flamewar.
> I will not get draw into another devfs flamewar.
> Sh*t.

Tell me about it. You know, whatever happened to accepting the
umpire's decision?

> Perhaps because adding a devfsd mechanism to devfs is more
> lightweight on the kernel side.  fs/autofs/ is 68 blocks on my box,
> fs/devfs/ is just under twice that.  I know obj side != source size,
> but I'd guess a lot less than half of devfs is devoted to the devfsd
> protocol....

Correct.

				Regards,

					Richard....
Permanent: [e-mail]
Current:   [e-mail]