By that argument you should never introduce something new because
people will be "forced" to use the new thing.
> >Again, just use the old names: I didn't take tham away.
> >
> >> We need to keep the "KISS" principle in mind. While the naming scheme
> >> of dev_fs may be logical it is not simple.
> >>
> >> /dev/sda, /dev/sda[1-15] is simple.
> >
> >And you can keep using it.
>
> Probably not for long if devfs is added.
This could only happen if there was widespread support in the Linux
community. It would also require a push. I have no plans for such a
push. Also, support for the plain major&minor disc-based device nodes
will remain (for POSIX compatibility), so you can create device nodes
with whatever name you like.
You can even set CONFIG_DEVFS_FS to 'n'.
> >> Richard, I have read your FAQ where the naming scheme for SCSI disks
> >> is described and it screams "ugly".
> >
> >So ignore the new names and keep using the old names. Nothing in your
> >message talks about devfs itself, you're only addressing the minor
> >issue of naming, which is in fact not a problem.
>
> I think the verbosely cryptic naming sceme of the current devfs is the only
> real problem with it. My suggestion is to simplify the naming (keeping
> backward compatability when possible).
There *is* a need for a naming scheme like the new SCSI names, at
least for big systems. People with small systems or who don't like the
new names can use the existing names. But that should stop people with
big systems being allowed to have a location-based naming scheme.
Regards,
Richard....
-
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.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html