Re: [Evms-devel] Re: [PATCH] EVMS core 2/4: evms.h

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>]

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.