Re: Larger dev_t

Martin Dalecki
2001-03-28T21:25:54Z

"H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
>
> Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > > Another example: all the stupid pseudo-SCSI drivers that got their own
> > > major numbers, and wanted their very own names in /dev. They are BAD for
> > > the user. Install-scripts etc used to be able to just test /dev/hd[a-d]
> > > and /dev/sd[0-x] and they'd get all the disks. Deficiencies in the SCSI
> >
> > Sorry here I have to disagree. This is _policy_ and does not belong in the
> > kernel. I can call them all /dev/hdfoo or /dev/disc/blah regardless of
> > major/minor encoding. If you dont mind kernel based policy then devfs
> > with /dev/disc already sorts this out nicely.
> >
> > IMHO more procfs crud is also not the answer. procfs is already poorly
> > managed with arbitary and semi-random namespace. Its a beautiful example of
> > why adhoc naming is as broken as random dev_t allocations. Maybe Al Viro's
> > per device file systems solve that.
> >
>
> In some ways, they make matters worse -- now you have to effectively keep
> a device list in /etc/fstab. Not exactly user friendly.
>
> devfs -- in the abstract -- really isn't that bad of an idea; after all,

Devfs is from a desing point of view the duplication for the bad /proc
design for devices. If you need a good design for general device
handling with names - network interfaces are the thing too look at.
mount() should be more like a select()... accept()!