So here we are, arguing about names, because suddenly Ted admitted
that a virtual FS might be good. But then he says he doesn't like the
names. Before that he was denying to the hilt that a virtual FS had
any merit.
Sigh. Let me try again. The fact that people are arguing about names
means that it is clear the kernel should *not* be dictating what shows
up in /dev. That should be done by a user-mode daemon. Like it or not,
the names in /dev *are* policy, and kernel should not be dictating
policy. Therefore, the kernel should not be deciding what names appear
in /dev. Q.E.D.
Now, how the user-mode daemon gets the information about what devices
are in the system is different design question. It could get them via a
flat file in /proc, or it could get it via sysctl(), or any number of
other approaches. If you're in love with virtual filesystems, then
fine, do it that way; I don't have a strong distaste of virtual
filesystems per se, which is why the claims of hypocrisy vis-a-vis
procfs don't stick.
The issue is not virtual FS versus some other kernel interface. The
issue is what appears in /dev, and whether the kernel code should be
hard coding what happears in /dev. It shouldn't. That's policy. The
kernel shouldn't be dictating policy.
Instead, the kernel should be exporting sufficient information so that a
user-mode daemon can provide whatever interesting naming scheme (and
that naming scheme might include device names based on the UUID or the
fslabel in the ext2 device, or something else far more general than what
kernel-space code can provide.)
- Ted
-
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/