Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Mar 2001 14:44:51 -0800 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: Larger dev_t |
| |
Jesse Pollard wrote: > > > > > > > high-end-disks. Rather the reverse. I'm advocating the SCSI layer not > > > > hogging a major number, but letting low-level drivers get at _their_ > > > > requests directly. > > > > > > A major for 'disk' generically makes total sense. Classing raid controllers > > > as 'scsi' isnt neccessarily accurate. A major for 'serial ports' would also > > > solve a lot of misery > > > > > > > But it might also cause just as much misery, specifically because things > > move around too much. > > That can be handled. It calls for using a volume name or UUID on file > systems and allowing mount to accept the volume name. > > One way would be to add the volume identifier (whatever it ends up being) > to the /proc/partitions file. Then mount could search that table for > the volume name and use the associated device definitions to accomplish > the mount. >
Since when have serial ports had a UUID or volume name?
Seriously, folks, don't look too much at block devices, especially not block devices that are mounted. That's the easy -- nay, trivial -- case. Char devices is where the rubber hits the road.
-hpa
-- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |