Re: devfs

Richard Gooch (rgooch@atnf.CSIRO.AU)
Sun, 18 Jan 1998 15:41:57 +1100

Leonard N. Zubkoff writes:
> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:30:54 +1100
> From: Kevin Lentin <>
> I think we're missing the point. What we _need_ is dictated by what we've
> _got_. We have partitions. We don't have slices. So we use 'p'. If slices
> get added into Linux one day then the device naming will have to be changed
> anyway.
> This is why I've pushed for using 'p' not 's'. It's more than aesthetics
> or personal preference: 's' is WRONG for 'fdisk' generated disk layout.
> You're forgetting that someone researched this and reported that "s" and "d"
> originally stood for "device" and "subdevice", which is more general than
> partitions or slices and not inherently wrong for fdisk. That's the definition
> I adopted, not "slice". I still think that /dev/sd/c0b0t0d0 is a reasonable
> choice for a whole disk and /dev/sd/c0b0t0d0s1 etc for PC style partitions. If
> we need to incorporate further subdivisions for slices, we can easily extend
> this to /dev/sd/c0b0t0d0s1.2 to refer to slice 2 within PC partition 1. I
> think we should retain the convention of referring to logical partitions as
> subdevices 5..N for compatibility with present Linux systems.

It does seem inconsistent to have letters delimiting all the other
parameters except the slices. If you can come up with a different
letter for "slice" which doesn't sound too contrived, I'd prefer
that. Right now 's' could be either "subdevice" or "slice". One could
use 'l' for discLabel, but that looks too much like '1'.