lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Aug]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:43    [W:0.093 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site