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
    On Tue, Oct 05, 1999, Martin Dalecki <dalecki@cs.net.pl> wrote:
    > 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/

    So I assume that you don't like /proc or /dev/pts either? They are both
    dynamic fs' as well.

    Can you tell me what you specifically dislike about dynamic filesystems?

    JE


    -
    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:2.180 / U:0.164 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site