Messages in this thread | | | From | "Anthony Barbachan" <> | Subject | Re: DEVFSv50 and /dev/fb? (or /dev/fb/? ???) | Date | Thu, 6 Aug 1998 23:51:03 -0400 |
| |
>> naming sceme, change only what needs to be changed like SCSI. > >By that argument you should never introduce something new because >people will be "forced" to use the new thing.
No I am not saying that. But it doesn't make sense to change everything, even the devices which do not suffer from large amounts of sub devices. Besides I am agruing against the gratuitous use of the new naming sceme not dev_fs in general. SCSI may and probably does need it but most other devices do not. Why change /dev/hd[a-h] when EIDE devices are already location based?
> >> >Again, just use the old names: I didn't take tham away. >> > >> >> We need to keep the "KISS" principle in mind. While the naming scheme >> >> of dev_fs may be logical it is not simple. >> >> >> >> /dev/sda, /dev/sda[1-15] is simple. >> > >> >And you can keep using it. >> >> Probably not for long if devfs is added. > >This could only happen if there was widespread support in the Linux >community. It would also require a push. I have no plans for such a >push. Also, support for the plain major&minor disc-based device nodes >will remain (for POSIX compatibility), so you can create device nodes >with whatever name you like. >You can even set CONFIG_DEVFS_FS to 'n'. > >> >> Richard, I have read your FAQ where the naming scheme for SCSI disks >> >> is described and it screams "ugly". >> > >> >So ignore the new names and keep using the old names. Nothing in your >> >message talks about devfs itself, you're only addressing the minor >> >issue of naming, which is in fact not a problem. >> >> I think the verbosely cryptic naming sceme of the current devfs is the only >> real problem with it. My suggestion is to simplify the naming (keeping >> backward compatability when possible). > >There *is* a need for a naming scheme like the new SCSI names, at >least for big systems. People with small systems or who don't like the >new names can use the existing names. But that should stop people with >big systems being allowed to have a location-based naming scheme. >
I am not against the name change where it is needed, like SCSI, but EIDE devices definately do not need it, nor do other devices.
> Regards, > > Richard.... > >- >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.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html >
- 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.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
| |