Messages in this thread | | | From | Shawn Leas <> | Subject | RE: PUBLIC CHALLENGE: (was RE: devfs again, (was RE: USB device a lloc ation) ) | Date | Fri, 8 Oct 1999 14:28:48 -0500 |
| |
From: Horst von Brand [mailto:vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl] Subject: Re: PUBLIC CHALLENGE: (was RE: devfs again, (was RE: USB device allocation) )
>If the _user_ uses devfs, the _developer_ has to provide it. A halfway >system is worse than each alternative on its own.
Big fat lie. It falls on the user to use MAKEDEV in conjunction with devfs if a driver is non-devfs.
>But does when enabled. One more variable to consider on each support call.
So CONFIG_DEVFS=N.
>I've never said that everybody is like me. I'm careful to talk about my >experience, and what I have seen. As far, nobody at all has stepped forward >telling the grueling story of his machine with hundreds of devices that >change minute by minute, so I'd have to assume that this doesn't exist, or >in any case is so marginal that any impact at all on the kernel used by >millions that don't have any use for the feature is out.
Yes they have, he was on the linux-usb list. Stop ignoring people.
>Change MAKEDEV, be my guest.
CHALLENGE: You give me a script that finds the bus, target, and lun for every SCSI and IDE device on the system without devfs.
>/dev/c1t3d0s2 becomes /dev/c2t3d0s2 when you move the controller, and >adding a new disk gets you to /dev/c2t4d0s2. How does this solve the "sdc is >now sdb" problem?
You're a dunce. I can't be nice anymore.
>Can't do that, because it is deeply ingrained into the kernel's way of >handling devices.
Big fat lie.
>ROMFS is designed to be _small_, not full-Unix. I'd guess adding device >nodes to ROMFS won't make it much larger. Surely much less than devfs and >its bloat in all devices by itself.
BIG fucking fat damn lie.
>That isn't exactly right. As said above, it does not solve all problems. >Plus the naming problem is still there, it is just shifted from MAKEDEV
Again, write me a script that determines the SCSI host, target, and LUN on your linux box.
>(yuck!) to either another configuration file (same yuck!) or the driver >itself (double yuck!), which will have to find out if it is controller 2 or >3 this time just for the sake of naming its devices (triple yuck!). Also, >if you rename your disks that way, they will still be /dev/sdX for >everybody else. The naming issue is _not_ local to your machine only, >unless you prefer to live in a vacuum. Also, if something solves several >problems in one fell swoop _without_ adding strange klugdes and needing >extra machinery, it's an elegant solution (the conception behind Unix is a >fine example). If not, it's just exchanging one mess for another one. My >fear here is that devfs exchanges an acknowledged mess, which we know and >over time learned how to handle in a reasonable way; with a much larger >mess, one with unknown quirks that will have to be worked around. All for >no real gain.
That's a lot of words to lie just once.
>Yes, I did. But if the costs involved are smaller than the benefits, go for >it. If not, leave it alone. In this case, as no pressing need has surfaced, >and no clear benefits have been shown, leave it alone.
BIG FAT LIE.
- 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/
| |