> You really don' t understand that the inode lookup time is not an issue.
> Please really stop using it as and argument in favor of devfs.
There's a little more to it than that, as you probably already know. I
have a tendancy to oversimplify this.
Please allow me to spare you the details of what I mean, as I trust you
understand the performance aspects involved in this quite completely, and
if I've noted this as the greater reason for DEVFS, forgive me.
There are FAR more convincing reasons to like it than that. I, for one,
would not notice ANY noticable performance increases as my PC is fairly
small scale.
In an enterprise scale system, there are certain factors that Richard has
noted that would be a performance hit w/out DEVFS. It addresses these
concerns by being fundamentally different, and transcend boundries bumped
into by standard device noding schemes. By being a fresh approach, it can
do this, and IS NOT a kludge.
Do you agree more with that explaination?
-Shawn
<=========== America Held Hostage ===========>
Day 2023 for the poor and the middle class.
Day 2042 for the rich and the dead.
899 days remaining in the Raw Deal.
<============================================>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html