lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: USB device allocation
David Weinehall wrote:
>
> 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.

Inventing a dynamic fs is cluttering the way I see what a fs should be
by far more then just having some superflous entries in /dev/

--Marcin

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:54    [W:0.096 / U:0.344 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site