lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Oct]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: USB device allocation
    On Wed, 6 Oct 1999, Marcin Dalecki wrote:

    > David Weinehall wrote:
    > >
    > > On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, Martin Dalecki 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/
    > >
    > > Is procfs any better in this respect?!
    >
    > No it isn't.
    >
    > > Oh, and have you actually ever tried a system running devfs (such as a
    > > kernel patched with Richard Gooch' patch, or a Solaris-system), or?
    >
    > Yes.
    >
    > > Hmmm. If USB isn't enough to convince, think about USB2 (128 devices/bus
    > > if I'm not all wrong), FireWire, FibreChannel, SCSI-III, etc. Sooner or
    > > later we need a solution to the problem with devices. And devfs is a very
    > > good, thought-through, proven to work (been used in Solaris for many
    > > years) and backward-compatible solution. And it's available now.
    >
    > You should learn to solve the problems which really arise instead of
    > doing academic exercises.
    >
    OK, I'll bite. Gimme 1024 serial ports. Yesterday.
    That is 2048 devices (standard).
    Easy with devfs, pretty convoluted with dynamic major numbers.

    Now: remember what the permissions were _supposed_ to be on all
    of them after you did your "boot -r" Solaris style and lost them all.

    Real world.

    --
    Daniel Taylor Senior Test Engineer Digi International
    danielt@digi.com Open systems win.


    -
    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:0.028 / U:89.340 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site