Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 11:03:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: How much do we need the all-singing, all-dancing devfs? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10007261059440.57978-100000@beppo.feral.com> In-Reply-To: <20000726095611.B68912@ywing.creative.net.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> ok. There should not be a reason why you can't simply register your FC > devices as '/dev/fc/$label' or even '/dev/$label' rather than '/dev/da1a'. > A "true" devfs would not pretend to impose a "%s%d", majorstring, minorunit > type namespace in front of all devices, and so neither should you. > If you have a generic FC layer which handles mapping physical devices to > logical devices, I can't see a problem here. I don't have a problem other then the lack of existence of a devfs I can use today, no, I suppose not. I'd rather, as I keep saying, have both- certainly if there's any possibility of *not* having a devfs I can use soon. > > Without understand how the disklabel code works, I then can't see a reason > why a generic 'disklabel' layer can't be introduced for interested devices > to supply their own label rather than be given da/ad -- and furthering that, > register multiple device names for the same devsw. The addalias and friends > in the existing VFS code will handle multiple namespace entries for the > same device, which is what works right now. Well, okay, whatever.... -matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.10007261059440.57978-100000>