Re: PUBLIC CHALLENGE: (was RE: devfs again, (was RE: USB device a lloc ation) )

Horst von Brand (vonbrand@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl)
Sun, 10 Oct 1999 03:52:45 -0300


"Stefan Monnier" <monnier+lists/linux/kernel/news/@tequila.cs.yale.edu> said:
> >>>>> "Horst" == Horst von Brand <vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl> writes:

[...]

> > Strange. I've been running OSS on my PC for quite some time, no problems
> > there. No devfs in sight, done it way before devfs was dreamed up even.

> Maybe it's because you don't read what you reply to ?
> The claim was that OSS would break if you used modules along with a script
> that clears the /dev hierarchy based on what is really available (hint:
> before the OSS module is loaded, those things are not available so the
> devices would be removed, preventing the autoloading from kicking in).

kmod keeps devices available here.

> > All of them handle them as files that have persistent permissions, AFAIK.

> Oh yes! But persistence of the special-device-file is not necessarily
> such a good idea when the underlying major/minor assignmment is dynamic.

OK, either /dev/disk1 is everytime the same disk (in which case persistence
is mandatory) or it is not (there I agree with you). But in the second case
the name and major/minor things are totally useless, as you can't depend on
them as handles for anything. Then just use some other way to manage devices,
and forget /dev altogether then.

-- 
Horst von Brand                             vonbrand@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl
Casilla 9G, Viņa del Mar, Chile                               +56 32 672616

- 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/