Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 5 Aug 1998 19:54:39 +1200 | From | Chris Wedgwood <> | Subject | Re: DEVFSv50 and /dev/fb? (or /dev/fb/? ???) |
| |
> 1. Companies, clients, and I like the current naming conventions, > and want to keep using the current naming conventions.
The current nomencature sucks.
I don't know why everyone wants to hold on to /dev/sda,b,c,d, etc. its horrible and IMO probably makes more sense to tie the device to the physical controler, bus, card, etc.
For mounts, etc. moving when SCSI devices are added, changed, etc. then update mount(8) to be smart with volume labels. I had a rough version of this working at one point (only worked for ext2fs and swap files which had been `tagged').
> 2. What advantage does dev_fs offer us over the present system? > Understand that we do not care about thousands & thousands of > inodes in /dev, we do not care about directory searches being > slow. So given that what are the advantages?
Thousands - think millions or perhaps even more. Think tens of controllers, tens of busses, hundreds of devices tens of LUNs and tens of partitions.
And - yes, many many inodes are a problem.
Not that I advocate devfs, but there is no denying it does sidestep the issue quite nicely, but then again, there may be other alternatives not so closely tied to the kernel.
-cw
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
| |