| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4A7C4D6C.6050101@nortel.com> Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 09:51:08 -0600 From: "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com> To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> CC: Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>, Jan Blunck <jblunck@...e.de>, gregkh@...e.de, Harald Hoyer <harald@...hat.com>, Scott James Remnant <scott@...ntu.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Driver Core: devtmpfs - kernel-maintained tmpfs-based /dev Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 08:04:08AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote: >> The question is, how fast can devtmpfs get the device list from the kernel on >> bootup? How much faster than udev? How much slower than static /dev? > > It's much faster than udev, and is equivalent to a static /dev with the > exception that the group and permission settings that you are used to. > udev then needs to come along and make those settings, but that's so > frickin fast it's amazing. Earlier in the thread you indicated a 0.5sec speedup over udev. Is that really considered "much faster"? I do agree that it makes sense to do this, but more from an elegance view than a performance one. Chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists