Messages in this thread | | | From | Mitch Adair <> | Subject | Re: devfs | Date | Tue, 13 Jan 1998 18:47:57 -0600 (CST) |
| |
> > Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 10:33:04 -0800 (PST) > From: Jauder Ho <jauderho@transmeta.com> > > how about this? > > /dev/sd/h0c0t0u0p2 > > There. that should make everyone happy... > > first part after the /dev describes the type of device so > you can have /dev/scd/.... , /dev/sgd > > and preserve all the current names > > I think either /dev/dsk/sd_... or /dev/sd/... are both reasonable choices. > > I am now wondering what the rationale is for using "p" rather than "s" for the > partition number. I cannot think of any particularly compelling reason for > either choice. "p" is somewhat more mnemonic, but I find "s" slightly more > esthetic (since "p" would be the only character with a descender) and it is > compatible with other systems. So how about: > > /dev/sd/h0c0t0u0s2
For the ultimate in pure esthetics:
/dev/sd/c0b0t0d0s0
(but I think I'm repeating myself here :)
Honestly though - the h(ost) is fine the (u)nit is ok the (p)artition I can live with, but I would recommend changing the c(hannel) to b(us) If we are going to be different from Solaris (or SVr* as someone pointed out) then let's at least not conflict with the other name scheme (ie c(ontroller) vs c(hannel)) Would that be ok?
Mitch (/dev/sd/h0b0t0u0p0 I could happily live with...)
> > versus > > /dev/dsk/sd_h0c0t0u0s2 > > I think I personally would prefer the former. > > Leonard >
| |