On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:26:45PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Greg KH wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 01:36:51PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>> Randy Dunlap wrote: >>>>> Come on people, adding symlinks for device major:minor numbers in sysfs >>>>> to save a few 10s of lines of userspace code? Can things get sillier? >>>>> >>>>> You can add a single udev rule to probably build these in a tree in >>>>> /dev >>>>> if you really need such a thing... >>>>> >>>>> And what's wrong with your new ioctl recomendation? >>>> Ah, there's some sanity. :) >>> It's not so much an issue of a few tens of lines of user space code, but >>> rather the fact that something that should be O(1) is currently O(n). >> "should"? why? Is this some new requirement that everyone needs? I've >> _never_ seen anyone ask for the ability to find sysfs devices by >> major:minor number in O(1) time. Is this somehow a place where such >> optimization is warranted? > > Well, when dealing with shell scripts a O(n) very easily becomes O(n^2). > For the stuff that I, personally, do, it's not a big deal, but people with > large number of disks have serious gripes with our boot times. How does this have anything to do with boot times? Do you really have a foolish shell script that iteratorates over every single disk in the sysfs tree for every disk? What does it do that for? I thought we were talking about 2TB disks here, with a proposed new ioctl, not foolishness of boot scripts... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
