On Thursday 10 December 2009 08:59, Rob Landley wrote: > Anybody want to speculate how devtmpfs impacts mdev? > > http://lwn.net/Articles/330985/ > > 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...
I don't know. I need to start using mdev on my box to get a taste/feel the pain. -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
