Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 5 Oct 1999 22:33:38 +0200 (MET_DST) | From | David Weinehall <> | Subject | Re: USB device allocation |
| |
On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Dan Hollis wrote: > > > > On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, Steffen Grunewald wrote: > > > That's 32 entries for 16 devices... > > > > 64 = /dev/usbscanner0 USB HP scanner > > > > ... > > > > 95 = /dev/usbscanner15 > > > Same here... > > > > 128 = /dev/ttyACM0 USB modem > > > > ... > > > > 255 = /dev/ttyACM127 > > > What about some spare entries for USB monitors, speakers, CDrecorders ? > > > > The desperate need for devfs becomes all more clear. > > > > Actually, the need is for a decent-sized dev_t.
With a decently sized dev_t we will still have the problem with a cluttered /dev directory. With devfs we won't. And if you still want your standard, cluttered, /dev directory, you can still have it with devfs. So I can't really understand you being so negative in regard to devfs.
/David Weinehall _ _ // David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\ // Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky // \> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
- 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.tux.org/lkml/
| |