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
>>>>> 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?