lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: removable media revalidation - udev vs. devfs or static /dev
Date
Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@oracle.com> writes:

> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:57:00AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > Hm, that would work, but what about a user program that just polls on
> > the device, as the rest of this thread discusses? As removable devices
> > are not the "norm" it would seem a bit of overkill to create 16
> > partitions for every block device, if they need them or not.
>
> Um, adding all 16 partitions for a block device that has 5
> defined is opposite of the intention of udev, no?

It shouldn't be _that_ bad.

removable media devices usually tell you that they are removable media
devices (scsi: inquiry data has a bit for that IIRC). If you pass
this up to hotplug it can use that to figure whenever it has a hard
disk (=> just create the existing partitions) or a removable device
(=> create a few more nodes to catch the usual removable media
layouts).

I also think you don't need *all* minors for removable media. I
havn't seen removable media with extended partitions so far. IIRC zip
floppys are using /dev/sda4 and most other ones either /dev/sda1 or
/dev/sda directly, so we likely can catch 99% with just three device
nodes.

Gerd

--
You have a new virus in /var/mail/kraxel
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans