Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 7 Jan 1998 22:07:48 -0600 (CST) | | From | Phil Brutsche <> | | Subject | Re: no need for a devfs | |
On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Richard Gooch wrote:
> Pavel Machek writes:
[snipped]
> Thank you, Pavel. The running of makedev every time a module is
> loaded/unloaded is likely to be *much* slower than devfs.
>
> And I certainly have SCSI disc naming in my sights... With devfs you
> can have both the old-style /dev/sd{a,b,c} as well as something like
> the Solaris scheme:
>
> /dev/hHcCiIlLpP
>
> where <H> is the host controller number, <C> is the channel number,
> <I> is the SCSI ID, <L> is the logical unit and <P> is the partition
> number (stripe in Solaris parlance). So, the following system:
>
> scsi : 1 host.
> Detected scsi disk sda at scsi0, channel 0, id 0, lun 0
> Detected scsi disk sdb at scsi0, channel 0, id 1, lun 0
> Detected scsi disk sdc at scsi0, channel 0, id 3, lun 0
> Partition check:
> sda: sda1 sda2 sda3 sda4 < sda5 sda6 sda7 >
> sdb: sdb1
> sdc: sdc1 sdc2
>
> would have the following:
>
> /dev/h0c0i0l0p1
> /dev/h0c0i0l0p2
> /dev/h0c0i0l0p3
> /dev/h0c0i0l0p4
> /dev/h0c0i0l0p5
> /dev/h0c0i0l0p6
> /dev/h0c0i0l0p7
>
> /dev/h0c0i1l0p1
>
> /dev/h0c0i3l0p1
> /dev/h0c0i3l0p2
No, please don't do this. It's too confusing. What's wrong with the
current SCSI setup (/dev/sda, /dev/sda1, /dev/sda2, etc) in any case?
The incosistency can be considered a bad thing. Unless some change is
planned for the IDE subsystem (along the same lines) consistency is a good
thing.
(Duh! Another thought... we could make symlinks from /dev/sda1
to /dev/h0c0i0l0p1 and so on and so forth. For the time being, ignore
what I just said about this being a bad thing...)
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard....
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Brutsche
"Be of stout heart, Number One. We've handled the Borg. We can
certainly handle Admiral Jellico." - Jean-Luc Picard
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|  |