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....
| |