> >Fine, you don't like the new naming scheme. That's why the old names
> >are still there. If you are deeply wedded to the old names, you are
> >welcome to them. I'm not *forcing* you to use the new naming
> >scheme. Go ahead and use the old names.
> >
>
> Actually you are. This is like saying that the new C++ standard doesn't
> force one to use new style casts and gratuitous templates. Sure the old
> device name (old style casts) are still there, for now, but "depricated".
> One may choose not to use them but everybody else will and consequently one
> will eventually have to deal with them. And most new systems will use devfs
> if it is part of the kernel simply because its the new thing. Everything
> does not need a new naming sceme, change only what needs to be changed like
> SCSI.
Your analogy would work if one were comparing an older version of
devfs to the current version. But if you want to liken devfs to the
most recent C++ standard, the current /dev scheme is much more like C.
And as we all know, people still program in C.
> >> Richard, I for one would rather live with thousands and thousands of
> >> inodes in /dev/ than live with the "ugly" naming scheme of dev_fs.
> >
> >How about /dev/sd{a,b,c...} entries only for the discs you have? You
> >can have that right now with devfs.
> >
>
> /dev/sd{a,b,c,...} is definately cleaner and simplier than
> /dev/dsk/c0t0u0d0s0 (or whatever?!?!?!?). And EIDE devices definately do
> not need all this verbosity. How about changing over to a derivative of
> /dev/sd{a,b,c,...}.
/dev/sd? may be simpler than /dev/scsi/c0t0u0d0, but it is essentially
arbitrary -- if you add a SCSI device with an ID between two others, then
half your fstab is likely to break, since /dev/sd? is assigned in the order
the devices are scanned. I wouldn't call that very clean at all. As for
IDE, I would be inclined to agree -- but there are EIDE CD changers in
existence, which argues at least for the need for /dev/ide/cXtXuX.
[snip]
> 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).
It's not really that cryptic. It's verbose, yes, but not moreso than
is necessary -- I don't like the fact that adding devices to my SCSI chain
can require me to boot off of a floppy because all of a sudden my root
device isn't what it used to be and Linux can't mount its root fs.
-- Michael
-
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