Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 Jun 1999 21:05:31 +1000 | From | Richard Gooch <> | Subject | Re: Devfs, was Re: Migrating to larger numbers |
| |
Stephen Frost writes: > On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Richard Gooch wrote: > > > I'm not suggesting that the user has to worry about this. This is done > > in the boot scripts or in devfsd. I just don't thing that this belongs > > in devfs (i.e. the kernel) itself. There's no need. > > Creating the symlinks only needs to be done once at boot time. > > I don't see that as being the case. What about your USB > cdrom? Or your pcmcia cdrom? Or your firewire cdrom? cdrom's is > just one example as well, there could be a number of other devices > where the devices fall into a similar category ('cdrom') and there > exists more than one and they are connected via different drivers.
So you create one symbolic link for each CD-ROM interface type. So far I count 3: IDE, SCSI and possibly USB. PCMCIA is just IDE.
What's the problem?
> The only problem I see is exactly what one of the things devfs > was trying to help get rid of, a cluttered /dev. Now you've got > /dev/<interface> and /dev/<device> directories. Though, I suppose > it isn't as bad if there are only so many devices in a system, and > the directories are only created if a device of that type exists.
The clutter benefit of devfs comes in part because you only have devices for what you need. The other part is that there is a sensible heirarchy rather than lumping everything in /dev.
The symlinks would be put under /dev/cd. And it's only ever going to have a few entries because I can't imagine many different interface types being implemented.
Now, if you *really* care, you can have devfsd create the symlinks in /dev/cd as each interface type is loaded. Personally, I wouldn't bother.
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.tux.org/lkml/
| |