Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 5 Oct 1999 17:46:29 -0400 | From | Johannes Erdfelt <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |