Re: Larger dev_t

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@transmeta.com>]

Jesse Pollard wrote:
> > >
> > > > high-end-disks. Rather the reverse. I'm advocating the SCSI layer not
> > > > hogging a major number, but letting low-level drivers get at _their_
> > > > requests directly.
> > >
> > > A major for 'disk' generically makes total sense. Classing raid controllers
> > > as 'scsi' isnt neccessarily accurate. A major for 'serial ports' would also
> > > solve a lot of misery
> > >
> >
> > But it might also cause just as much misery, specifically because things
> > move around too much.
> 
> That can be handled. It calls for using a volume name or UUID on file
> systems and allowing mount to accept the volume name.
> 
> One way would be to add the volume identifier (whatever it ends up being)
> to the /proc/partitions file. Then mount could search that table for
> the volume name and use the associated device definitions to accomplish
> the mount.
> 

Since when have serial ports had a UUID or volume name?

Seriously, folks, don't look too much at block devices, especially not
block devices that are mounted.  That's the easy -- nay, trivial --
case.  Char devices is where the rubber hits the road.

	-hpa

-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt