Messages in this thread | | | From | "Khimenko Victor" <> | Date | Sat, 9 Oct 1999 13:16:22 +0400 (MSD) | Subject | Re: [linux-usb] Re: USB device allocation |
| |
In <E11ZiN6-0004gG-00@the-village.bc.nu> Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk) wrote: >> > RJ> The Unix-like kernel knows only major/minor device numbers, not names. >> > Which POSIX standard says how unix-like kernel acts inside ??? >> >> I'm beginning to wonder why we're still fumbling around with the >> major/minor concept. Is there any compelling reason for it other than >> "thats the way we've always done it since 1970's, and 640k is enough ram >> for anyone"?
AC> You need a permanent on disk device key for the system.
Correct.
AC> That basically means either a name or number in the inode.
Correct.
AC> A number is obviously somewhat easier.
Wrong. Configuration files for programs uses names (like "/dev/ttyS0" or wahtever) anyway. So you have NO choice: you use names. Then you can translate it to major/minor numbers and then kernel will translate major/minor number in device address (old way) or you can translate device name straight to device address (devfs way). Why old way is preferrable ? This is the question.
AC> major/minor is a very clean and neat idea - we might want 32bits of it sure
They are clean and neat ONLY if we agree that intermediate step (device name->major/minor->driver address) is needed. And I can not understood why it's needed.
- 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/
| |