Re: devfs
Richard Gooch (rgooch@atnf.CSIRO.AU)
Tue, 13 Jan 1998 21:50:06 +1100
Leonard N. Zubkoff writes:
> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 17:58:22 +1100
> From: Richard Gooch <rgooch@atnf.CSIRO.AU>
>
> OK then. I can cope with that. So, people: you have a choice between:
>
> h0c0i0l0p2 current scheme: no changes required :-)
>
> h0c0t0u0p2 new scheme: requires people to change compatibility
> symlinks and /etc/fstab (if you've gone that far)
>
> I think it's a bit too soon to consider compatibility with an existing
> implementation as an important factor in design decisions. I think there is a
> strong argument to be made that the use of "t" and "u" provides greater
> readability. Using "l" would be a *very* bad idea, in my opinion. I think the
> "new scheme" is a good compromise between slavish compatibility with systems
> like Solaris and the unique needs of Linux. Use of "i" rather than "t" would
> be a gratuitous incompatibility, whereas the need for separate host number and
> channel number is fully justified.
OK, h0c0t0u0p2 it is.
> Leonard: what's your view on the placement of these devices:
>
> /dev/sd_h0c0t0u0p2 OR:
> /dev/disc/sd_h0c0t0u0p2
>
> I don't think deep directory trees are a good idea. At least not for
> the standard names. We can always create other trees/names later.
>
> I'd like to see /dev/disk/sd_h?c?t?u?p? personally (i.e., a single directory
> for all disk devices). The spelling "disc" is nonstandard. I think a shallow
> directory tree is a good compromise. It will be easier to find devices if
> there is a shallow hierarchy based on function: disk, tape, cdrom, scsi (for
> generic), etc.
Yes, that's my feeling too. I think devices should be categorised by
functionality. Whether something is a SCSI disc, an IDE disc or a
floppy is of secondary importance.
Instead of /dev/disk how about /dev/dsk, which is in keeping with
Solaris and HP-UX?
Regards,
Richard....