Re: devfs

Richard Gooch (rgooch@atnf.CSIRO.AU)
Sun, 18 Jan 1998 20:37:35 +1100

Leonard N. Zubkoff writes:
> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 15:41:57 +1100
> From: Richard Gooch <rgooch@atnf.CSIRO.AU>
> 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'.
> While I perfer the more abstract device/subdevice concept to the
> more specific device/partition/slice proposal, device/subdevice is
> not really general enough to handle slices within partitions without
> using a contrived subdevice encoding. I don't have a reasonable
> suggestion to offer for extending it ("k" for contrived, anyone?
> :-)), so it looks like using device/partition/slice is the best
> we're going to do.

OK. Hopefully this covers everything. So, we have:
/dev/sd/c0b1t2d3p4 for a whole partition, be it primary or logical
/dev/sd/c0b1t2d3p4s5 for a single slice in a partition

Leonard: one last choice before I set this in stone: do we use 'd' for
LUN or 'u'? Since we have to drop the device/subdevice concept, I
suppose we could reconsider the d/u choice too. IMHO 'u' is a little
more obvious, although I'll leave it at 'd' if you really think that's