lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: USB device allocation
    David Weinehall wrote:
    >
    > On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
    >
    > > David Weinehall wrote:
    > > >
    > > > Oh, and have you actually ever tried a system running devfs (such as a
    > > > kernel patched with Richard Gooch' patch, or a Solaris-system), or?
    > > >
    > > > Hmmm. If USB isn't enough to convince, think about USB2 (128 devices/bus
    > > > if I'm not all wrong), FireWire, FibreChannel, SCSI-III, etc. Sooner or
    > > > later we need a solution to the problem with devices. And devfs is a very
    > > > good, thought-through, proven to work (been used in Solaris for many
    > > > years) and backward-compatible solution. And it's available now.
    > > >
    > >
    > > Solaris does *not* use devfs; the /devices tree is an on-disk device
    > > node tree which is constructed at initialization time, and it is
    > > persistent. A much better solution, IMNSHO.
    >
    > Why is that? You get the same layout with a dynamic-filesystem; the
    > difference is that with dynamic devices it becomes FAR easier to support
    > plug'n'play devices.
    >

    You get persistence; because the /devices tree is augmented, but not
    blindly.

    -hpa

    --
    <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!

    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:54    [W:0.031 / U:90.648 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site