[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090810154029.GC7652@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 08:40:29 -0700
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
Cc: Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.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
On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 09:55:24PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 12:14:39PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > > Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 12:17:31AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > > > > For devtmpfs to be a realistic replacement for static /dev, it has to
> > > > > be comparable to static /dev in both speed and size.
> > > >
> > > > Since when is this requirement necessary? You want something for free
> > > > in both speed and size? Well, you got it in speed, but not size, it
> > > > will take up memory that is swapable, and a tiny ammount of
> > > > non-swapable kernel memory for the code.
> > >
> > > Not so tiny when you count in the hotplug dependency.
> >
> > devtmpfs does not rely on hotplug at all.
>
> Are you sure?
>
> This is from the patch of this thread:
> > +config DEVTMPFS
> > + bool "Create a kernel maintained /dev tmpfs (EXPERIMENTAL)"
> > + depends on HOTPLUG && SHMEM && TMPFS
Ah, you're right.
Ok then, since you don't run CONFIG_HOTPLUG kernels, why are you worried
about this code at all?
confused,
greg k-h
--
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