Messages in this thread | | | Date | 11 Jan 1998 22:56:00 +0200 | From | (Kai Henningsen) | Subject | Re: no need for a devfs |
| |
mingo@chiara.csoma.elte.hu (MOLNAR Ingo) wrote on 11.01.98 in <Pine.LNX.3.96.980111202932.15060B-100000@chiara.csoma.elte.hu>:
> On 10 Jan 1998, Kai Henningsen wrote: > > > pbrutsch@creighton.edu (Phil Brutsche) wrote on 07.01.98 in > > <Pine.HPP.3.95.980107213351.13482C-100000@bluejay.creighton.edu>: > > > > > No, please don't do this. It's too confusing. What's wrong with the > > > current SCSI setup (/dev/sda, /dev/sda1, /dev/sda2, etc) in any case? > > > > It's fragile. But then, so is the proposed replacement. > > ? whats the problem with devfs-v3? It removes the dependence on _any_ > numbering scheme. You pick a logical naming (in string-space) _once_, and > it will be supported forever. The mapping between devices and internal > numbering (major/minor) is transparent.
That's true for all these schemes.
The important question is, what does the name _mean_? With the current scheme, "/dev/sdb7" means "the 3rd logical partition on the 2nd SCSI disk". "/dev/hdb7" is a little better - "the 3rd logical partition on the primary IDE slave disk".
What I proposed was something meaning effectively "the filesystem I mkfs'd on 1997-12-17 13:55:21.765".
See the difference?
MfG Kai
| |