devtmpfs and mdev?
rob at landley.net
Thu Dec 10 07:59:16 UTC 2009
Anybody want to speculate how devtmpfs impacts mdev?
As far as I can tell, just setting the permissions and ownership isn't enough
for us to tell the kernel not to zap the sucker when it goes away. We'd still
benefit from that happening.
We only want to clean up after the sucker if we have a shellout for it. My
guess would be to add a flag to the mount (which we can -o remount,theflag) to
say that changing the timestamp is the signal to let us clean up after it.
Or some such. Read the article and tell me what you think...
Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds
More information about the busybox