lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Aug]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: DEVFSv50 and /dev/fb? (or /dev/fb/? ???)
Date

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Gooch <Richard.Gooch@atnf.CSIRO.AU>
To: Anthony Barbachan <barbacha@Trill.cis.fordham.edu>
Cc: Terry L Ridder <terrylr@tbcnet.com>; linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
<linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu>
Date: Thursday, August 06, 1998 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: DEVFSv50 and /dev/fb? (or /dev/fb/? ???)


>Anthony Barbachan writes:
>> >> 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?
>
>Actually, you have said that in time the "old" names will be thrown
>out. Now, I can't promise that Linus wouldn't do that, but I'm sure
>he'd only do it with wide support.
>Furthermore, even if the "old" names were removed from devfs, you
>could still have them by not running devfs in the first place: the
>major&minor scheme isn't going to go away (POSIX mandates them).
>
>As I've said before: the IDE situtation is going to get more
>SCSI-like, according to the ex-IDE guys. The new IDE naming scheme in
>devfs is for future-proofing.
>

True but the number of EIDE devices are still limited. Now if tomorrow EIDE
came out with a new spec that dramatically changed the number of devices you
might have a point. But right now and the forseeable future EIDE is not
going to dramatically change, if change at all, the number of possible
devices. Now if that changed in the future then the EIDE devices could just
as easily be changed. But no reason to change it now.

>> >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.
>
>Like I said, IDE is moving towards SCSI. Furthermore, the new names
>make /dev less cluttered and more organised. Administrators should be
>given that choice.


I could organize /dev just as easily by moving or making the devices in
other directories. There is no hard coded or programmed rule that system
devices must reside in /dev. And your dev_fs could just as easily
dynamically create /dev/hda as /dev/ide/hd/c0......

>
> 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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:43    [W:0.720 / U:0.632 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site