Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 7 Jan 1998 22:38:57 +1100 | | From | Richard Gooch <> | | Subject | Re: no need for a devfs | |
Pavel Machek writes:
> Hi!> > > back to the topic :> > with the above registry in /proc, and a good makedev software (more a
> > device manager), i see no need for a /dev filesystem.> > Well, you would have to rerun makedev software every time module is
> inserted. Advantage of devfs was that it was up-to-date without
> needing to run makedev after every change. devfs also might have
> chance to solve scsi naming problems.
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
Regards,
Richard....
|  |