From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DqXEx-0002pP-Vj for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 14:20:36 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j67EIuik018092; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 14:18:56 GMT Received: from smtp03.gnvlscdb.sys.nuvox.net (smtp.nuvox.net [64.89.70.9]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j67EHJ78018805 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 14:17:20 GMT Received: from cgianelloni.nuvox.net (216.215.202.4.nw.nuvox.net [216.215.202.4]) by smtp03.gnvlscdb.sys.nuvox.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id j67EIgKZ021331 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 10:18:43 -0400 Received: by cgianelloni.nuvox.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 7 Jul 2005 10:18:13 -0400 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on From: Chris Gianelloni To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20050706224651.GA19853@kroah.com> References: <20050706224651.GA19853@kroah.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-aySko3AdjbdAwgsdCG00" Organization: Gentoo Linux Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 10:18:12 -0400 Message-Id: <1120745893.11567.42.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.1.1 X-Archives-Salt: 422dd144-f30a-4681-8609-fc2a8185440d X-Archives-Hash: 60e22058536a69e21a63118dfa49005e --=-aySko3AdjbdAwgsdCG00 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:46 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > To start with, the 061 version of udev offers a big memory savings if > you use the "default" kernel name of a device[3]. If you do that, it doe= s > not create a file in its database in /dev/.udevdb/ So if we were to switch to udev 061 in genkernel, it would shrink memory usage in our initrd/initramfs, provided we made everything use the LSB device names/nodes, versus the devfs ones, correct? > If we can move away from some of our devfs-like names, we stand to > reclaim a lot of memory from everyone's machines. As an example, if we > drop all of the tty/pts/vc/vcc symlinks, and just go with the default > kernel name, we save 2.5Mb of space in tempfs/ramfs. I've done this on > my machines and everything seems to work just fine (it looks like > everything that was trying to use a tty node was just using the symlink > anyway.) >=20 > So, anyone have any objections to me changing the default udev naming > scheme in this manner? None here. Anything that gives us more usable RAM even after we've snatched some for the initrd and for /dev and for the tmpfs of the LiveCD/InstallCD is fine by me. --=20 Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager Games - Developer Gentoo Linux --=-aySko3AdjbdAwgsdCG00 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBCzTmkkT4lNIS36YERAoslAKCfAwPv6yydu6wRaIKVL/wrWrNGyQCfb2v+ tdO/g26M58pPgsVeLuA5ock= =KKhP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-aySko3AdjbdAwgsdCG00-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list