Linux-kernel mailing list archive 2000-15,: Re: devfs - why not ?

# Re: devfs - why not ?

Dr. Kelsey Hudson (kernel@blackhole.compendium-tech.com)
Thu, 13 Apr 2000 17:05:15 -0700 (PDT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Horst von Brand: "Re: Suggested dual human/binary interface for proc/devfs"
- Previous message: Ed Carp: "Re: EXT2 and BadBlock updating....."
- In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: devfs - why not ?"
- Next in thread: Jesse Pollard: "Re: devfs - why not ?"
- Next in thread: David Elliott: "Device Naming, was: Re: devfs - why not ?"
- Reply: David Elliott: "Device Naming, was: Re: devfs - why not ?"

> Whats this c0t0d0s3. Thats woefully inadequate to describe a volume that
> is on a kernel managed multichanger on a fibrechannel fabric 8)

That's solaris' way of definig a device:
controller 0
target 0
device 0
slice 3

i do agree with mr. cox here though; it is very inadequate. Something
along the lines of

/dev/bus/scsi0/id0/lun0/slice3

would be much more descriptive, and organized in a much simpler way, IMO.

Kelsey Hudson khudson@ctica.com
Software Engineer
Compendium Technologies, Inc (619) 725-0771
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-
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: Horst von Brand: "Re: Suggested dual human/binary interface for proc/devfs"
- Previous message: Ed Carp: "Re: EXT2 and BadBlock updating....."
- In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: devfs - why not ?"
- Next in thread: Jesse Pollard: "Re: devfs - why not ?"
- Next in thread: David Elliott: "Device Naming, was: Re: devfs - why not ?"
- Reply: David Elliott: "Device Naming, was: Re: devfs - why not ?"