Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1999-23,: Re: Devfs, was Re: Migrating to larger numbers

# Re: Devfs, was Re: Migrating to larger numbers

Richard Gooch (rgooch@atnf.csiro.au)
Wed, 9 Jun 1999 15:04:43 +1000

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Jamie Lokier: "treescan 0.5 - optimised search for files in a directory tree"
- Previous message: CaT: "Re: Devfs, was Re: Migrating to larger numbers"
- Next in thread: CaT: "Re: Devfs, was Re: Migrating to larger numbers"
- Reply: CaT: "Re: Devfs, was Re: Migrating to larger numbers"
- Reply: Stephen Frost: "Re: Devfs, was Re: Migrating to larger numbers"

cat@zip.com.au writes:
> On Wed, Jun 09, 1999 at 02:47:56PM +1000, Richard Gooch wrote:
> > cat@zip.com.au writes:
> > > Hmmm. I'm not sure why. Currently (from what I've seen in this
> > > thread) you have a scheme of /dev/<interface>/<device>/*. What I'm
> > > saying is that you can also have say /dev/<device>/<interface> and
> > > let programs cycle through that. Those that are interested in seeing
> > > what's on an interface look in /dev/<interface>. Those who are
> > > looking for a device go for /dev/<device>. The driver just reports
> > > its stuff in two places. The difference is the code should really be
> > > almost nonexistant, no? Or am I getting something phenomally wrong?
> >
> > OK, I misunderstood you. It seemed to me that you were proposing that
> > *all* CD-ROM entries would appear in a single directory (no
> > sub-directories). That would be tricky. But the scheme you outline
> > would be pretty easy. You don't even need to modify devfs to support
> > this. All you need to do is set up some symlinks (from user space).
>
> True I suppose. But from what I see at least one of the reasons for
> devfs is that the user doesn't need to keep maintaining /dev. Having
> to put the links in userself kinda defeats that. You could have
> devfsd (something you mentioned I think) do it or, alternatively,
> just add a small mod to devfs itself and forget about having to
> support it externally. this latter option would possibly be more
> reliable too as it would permit both entries to be updated
> simultaneously rather then have one updated, wait for devfsd to
> catch it and so on.

I'm not suggesting that the user has to worry about this. This is done
in the boot scripts or in devfsd. I just don't thing that this belongs
in devfs (i.e. the kernel) itself. There's no need.
Creating the symlinks only needs to be done once at boot time.

Regards,

Richard....

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: Jamie Lokier: "treescan 0.5 - optimised search for files in a directory tree"
- Previous message: CaT: "Re: Devfs, was Re: Migrating to larger numbers"
- Next in thread: CaT: "Re: Devfs, was Re: Migrating to larger numbers"
- Reply: CaT: "Re: Devfs, was Re: Migrating to larger numbers"
- Reply: Stephen Frost: "Re: Devfs, was Re: Migrating to larger numbers"