Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 4 Oct 2002 15:08:50 +0100 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: [Evms-devel] Re: [PATCH] EVMS core 2/4: evms.h |
| |
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 12:42:23PM -0500, Mark Peloquin wrote: > >> +#define TRUE 1 > > > Please just use 0/1 directly just like everyone else.. > > More than happy to comply, however grep'ing the tree its > plain to see that not "everyone else" is following this > suggestion.
Sure there are other offenders in the drivers, from known offenders like Richard or IBM, but no core code. There is a reason why theses defines are not in kernel.h..
> > >> +#define DEV_PATH "/dev" > >> +#define EVMS_DIR_NAME "evms" > >> +#define EVMS_DEV_NAME "block_device" > >> +#define EVMS_DEV_NODE_PATH DEV_PATH "/" EVMS_DIR_NAME "/" > >> +#define EVMS_DEVICE_NAME DEV_PATH "/" EVMS_DIR_NAME "/" > EVMS_DEV_NAME > > > The kernel doesn't know about device names at all. > > I realize this is a goal, and I'm not opposed to it. However, > I know devfs is not popular, but people are using it, and it > *is* still available in 2.5. For the cases where ppl are > using it, the EVMS kernel component needs this info to tell > devfs the name of the devnode to create. I don't want to get > into a devfs flamewar, EVMS is simply offering interoperability > with what ppl n do today. Should that change, EVMS is more > than happy to adapt to the latest technology.
You can"t know where devfs is mounted. So of the above only EVMS_DIR_NAME and EVMS_DEV_NAME make sense.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |