Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: PUBLIC CHALLENGE: (was RE: devfs again, (was RE: USB device a lloc ation) ) | Date | Sun, 10 Oct 1999 03:52:45 -0300 | From | Horst von Brand <> |
| |
"Stefan Monnier" <monnier+lists/linux/kernel/news/@tequila.cs.yale.edu> said: > >>>>> "Horst" == Horst von Brand <vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl> writes:
[...]
> > Strange. I've been running OSS on my PC for quite some time, no problems > > there. No devfs in sight, done it way before devfs was dreamed up even.
> Maybe it's because you don't read what you reply to ? > The claim was that OSS would break if you used modules along with a script > that clears the /dev hierarchy based on what is really available (hint: > before the OSS module is loaded, those things are not available so the > devices would be removed, preventing the autoloading from kicking in).
kmod keeps devices available here.
> > All of them handle them as files that have persistent permissions, AFAIK.
> Oh yes! But persistence of the special-device-file is not necessarily > such a good idea when the underlying major/minor assignmment is dynamic.
OK, either /dev/disk1 is everytime the same disk (in which case persistence is mandatory) or it is not (there I agree with you). But in the second case the name and major/minor things are totally useless, as you can't depend on them as handles for anything. Then just use some other way to manage devices, and forget /dev altogether then. -- Horst von Brand vonbrand@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl Casilla 9G, Viña del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616
- 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/
| |