Re: USB device allocation
Johannes Erdfelt (jerdfelt@sventech.com)
Tue, 5 Oct 1999 17:46:29 -0400
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999, Martin Dalecki <dalecki@cs.net.pl> wrote:
> David Weinehall wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >
> > > Dan Hollis wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, Steffen Grunewald wrote:
> > > > > That's 32 entries for 16 devices...
> > > > > > 64 = /dev/usbscanner0 USB HP scanner
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > 95 = /dev/usbscanner15
> > > > > Same here...
> > > > > > 128 = /dev/ttyACM0 USB modem
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > 255 = /dev/ttyACM127
> > > > > What about some spare entries for USB monitors, speakers, CDrecorders ?
> > > >
> > > > The desperate need for devfs becomes all more clear.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Actually, the need is for a decent-sized dev_t.
> >
> > With a decently sized dev_t we will still have the problem with a
> > cluttered /dev directory. With devfs we won't. And if you still want your
> > standard, cluttered, /dev directory, you can still have it with devfs. So
> > I can't really understand you being so negative in regard to devfs.
>
> Inventing a dynamic fs is cluttering the way I see what a fs should be
> by far more then just having some superflous entries in /dev/
So I assume that you don't like /proc or /dev/pts either? They are both
dynamic fs' as well.
Can you tell me what you specifically dislike about dynamic filesystems?
JE
-
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/