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 1DqcUi-0007e8-GX for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 19:57:12 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j67Ju7We027610; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 19:56:07 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j67Jr8FC006787 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 19:53:09 GMT Received: from [83.218.6.121] (helo=dogmatix.willow.local) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1DqcQm-0002JB-9X for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 19:53:08 +0000 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on From: John Mylchreest 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="=-BsMF+8H+miFlVZFh9Qel" Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 20:52:20 +0100 Message-Id: <1120765940.30316.62.camel@localhost> 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: 6077cfc2-dba5-4711-8cf5-4eb90b0c0310 X-Archives-Hash: 7c182b33aefdee59cb9141ff2bce15e4 --=-BsMF+8H+miFlVZFh9Qel Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:46 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > 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? No objections here. I've been waiting fort his move for a little while now. The only real problems will be with those 2.4 (devfs) users who refuse to move, maybe this is good enough incentive. --=-BsMF+8H+miFlVZFh9Qel 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) iD8DBQBCzYf0z7mlh8wQzGMRAoeoAJ4llZhgefRnVFhCL9bbJBRrlZsQAwCfdlFg F8IekhwZ5l/l07VahmA2FlM= =Ngl5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-BsMF+8H+miFlVZFh9Qel-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list