Re: [PATCH 0/4] io-controller: Use names rather than major:minor

[Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 08:24:04PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 08:20:56PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> 
> [..]
> > > Which controllers are these?
> > > 
> > 
> > linux-2.6/Documentation/cgroups/devices.txt
> > 
> > > > - Displaying both device major/minor and diskname is an option but that
> > > >  makes the file format syntax little complicated and new rule setting
> > > >  or removoal confusing.
> > > 
> > > A few messages back you mentioned that you preferred device names
> > > because they would be better for users of the system.  If there was a
> > > simple implementation, would you still be behind a new name-based
> > > interface?  We could go that direction and maintain ABI by deprecating
> > > current interface and making a new interface with names.
> > > 
> > > If you can't tell, I'm a big fan of using the name! :)  It's *much*
> > > more consistent with the interfaces in /sys.
> > 
> > /sys provides facility to access device both through device number
> > (/sys/dev/block/<major:minor>) and disk name (/sys/block/<diskname>). So
> > I don't know why do you think it is more consistent with /sys if we
> > use diskname.
> > 
> > In general user space seems to be accessing devices using device files.
> > For example, blockdev utility.
> 
> One more example is "blktrace".

Another example is "hdparm"

Vivek