Re: USB device allocation
H. Peter Anvin (hpa@transmeta.com)
Tue, 05 Oct 1999 15:06:05 -0700
David Weinehall wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> > David Weinehall wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh, and have you actually ever tried a system running devfs (such as a
> > > kernel patched with Richard Gooch' patch, or a Solaris-system), or?
> > >
> > > Hmmm. If USB isn't enough to convince, think about USB2 (128 devices/bus
> > > if I'm not all wrong), FireWire, FibreChannel, SCSI-III, etc. Sooner or
> > > later we need a solution to the problem with devices. And devfs is a very
> > > good, thought-through, proven to work (been used in Solaris for many
> > > years) and backward-compatible solution. And it's available now.
> > >
> >
> > Solaris does *not* use devfs; the /devices tree is an on-disk device
> > node tree which is constructed at initialization time, and it is
> > persistent. A much better solution, IMNSHO.
>
> Why is that? You get the same layout with a dynamic-filesystem; the
> difference is that with dynamic devices it becomes FAR easier to support
> plug'n'play devices.
>
You get persistence; because the /devices tree is augmented, but not
blindly.
-hpa
--
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
-
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/