Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 9 May 2002 18:45:11 -0700 | | From | Mike Fedyk <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 2.5.14 IDE 56 |
| |
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 07:30:34PM +0200, benh@kernel.crashing.org wrote: > > > > > >On Tue, 7 May 2002 benh@kernel.crashing.org wrote: > >> > >> One interesting thing here would be to have some optional link between > >> the bus-oriented device tree and the function-oriented tree (ie. devfs > >> or simply /dev). > > > >There isn't any 1:1 thing - the device/bus-oriented one should _not_ show > >virtual things like partitions etc that have no relevance for a driver, > >while /dev (and thus devfs) obviously think that that is the important > >part, much more important than how we actually got to the device. > > > >I think we need to have some way of getting a mapping from /dev -> > >devicefs, but I don't think that has to be a filesystem thing (it might > >even be as simple as just one ioctl or new system call: 'get the "path" of > >this device'). > > > >There aren't that many people who actually care, I suspect. > > Sure, It's obviously not 1:1, what I had in mind was for the controller > to show what devices it exports in the sense of raw devices, but I agree > the other way makes a lot more sense. My problem was how to be devfs > agnostic, but you answered with "ioctl or syscall" and that would indeed > be ok. The ioctl things make it appliable to network interfaces as well, > which is good.
Yes, when will we get something that associates the physical device with network ethX name? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |