Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

Hi, On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 04:20:11PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: > On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 03:17:50PM +0100, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > Presumably, a new UUID is created each time format a partition, which means it > is a slight bit of hassle if you have to reload a partition from a dump,

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

Guest section DW writes: > On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 02:35:55AM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote: >> The PC partition table has such an ID. The LILO change log >> mentions it. I think it's 6 random bytes, with some restriction >> about being non-zero. > > You are confused. The partition table

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

Guest section DW writes: On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 02:35:55AM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote: The PC partition table has such an ID. The LILO change log mentions it. I think it's 6 random bytes, with some restriction about being non-zero. You are confused. The partition table contains IDs,

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

Hi, On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 04:20:11PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 03:17:50PM +0100, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: Presumably, a new UUID is created each time format a partition, which means it is a slight bit of hassle if you have to reload a partition from a dump, or

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

At 2:16 AM +1200 2001-05-21, Chris Wedgwood wrote: >On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 10:36:14AM -0700, Jonathan Lundell wrote: > > I know from system documentation, or can figure out once and for > all by experimentation, the correspondence between PCI > bus/dev/fcn and physical locations.

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

At 3:37 AM -0600 2001-05-20, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >Jonathan Lundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> At 10:42 AM +0200 2001-05-19, Kai Henningsen wrote: >> > > Jeff Garzik's ethtool >> > > extension at least tells me the PCI bus/dev/fcn, though, and from >> >> that I can write a

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

Jonathan Lundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > At 10:42 AM +0200 2001-05-19, Kai Henningsen wrote: > > > Jeff Garzik's ethtool > > > extension at least tells me the PCI bus/dev/fcn, though, and from > >> that I can write a userland mapping function to the physical > >> location. > > > >I

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

Jonathan Lundell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 10:42 AM +0200 2001-05-19, Kai Henningsen wrote: Jeff Garzik's ethtool extension at least tells me the PCI bus/dev/fcn, though, and from that I can write a userland mapping function to the physical location. I don't see how PCI

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

At 3:37 AM -0600 2001-05-20, Eric W. Biederman wrote: Jonathan Lundell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 10:42 AM +0200 2001-05-19, Kai Henningsen wrote: Jeff Garzik's ethtool extension at least tells me the PCI bus/dev/fcn, though, and from that I can write a userland mapping

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

At 2:16 AM +1200 2001-05-21, Chris Wedgwood wrote: On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 10:36:14AM -0700, Jonathan Lundell wrote: I know from system documentation, or can figure out once and for all by experimentation, the correspondence between PCI bus/dev/fcn and physical locations. Jeff's

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 03:17:50PM +0100, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 12:18:15PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: > > > With the current LABEL= support, you won't be able to mount the disks with > > duplicate labels, but you can still mount them via /dev/sd. > >

Re: no ioctls for serial ports? [was Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants]

On Saturday 19 May 2001 21:43, Pavel Machek wrote: > I think that plan9 uses something different -- they have ttyS0 and > ttyS0ctl. This would leave us with problem "how do I get handle to > ttyS0ctl when I only have handle to ttyS0"? One possibility is to add multiforked (multi-stream) file

Re: no ioctls for serial ports? [was Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants]

Hi! > > Well, if we did something like modify(int fd, char *how), you could do > > > > modify(0, "nonblock,9600") > > What you're really proposing is to make ioctl's be ASCII strings. Yup. > Which is not necessarily a bad idea, and I think plan9 did something > similar (or rather, if I

Re: no ioctls for serial ports? [was Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants]

Hi! > > > > > fd = open("/dev/tty00/nonblock,9600,n8", O_RDWR); > > > > > > > > Hmm, there might be problem with this. How do you change speed without > > > > reopening device? [Remember: your mice knows when you close device] > > The naming scheme is not a replacement for these kinds of

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

Chris Wedgwood wrote: > > Or you can fall back to mounting by UUID, which is globally > unique and still avoids referencing physical location. You also > don't need to manually set LABELs for UUID to work: all e2fsprogs > over the past couple of years have set UUID on

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

At 10:42 AM +0200 2001-05-19, Kai Henningsen wrote: > > >Make your config script look at the hardware MAC addresses. Those don't >> >change. >> >> They're not necessarily unique, though. > >So if you plug both into the same network segment, that segment is broken? >That looks like very stupid

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

At 10:42 AM +0200 2001-05-19, Kai Henningsen wrote: > > Jeff Garzik's ethtool > > extension at least tells me the PCI bus/dev/fcn, though, and from >> that I can write a userland mapping function to the physical >> location. > >I don't see how PCI bus/dev/fcn lets you do that. I know from

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

Hi, On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 05:29:32PM +1200, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > > Or you can fall back to mounting by UUID, which is globally > unique and still avoids referencing physical location. You also > don't need to manually set LABELs for UUID to work: all e2fsprogs > over the

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

Hi! > > > > But no, I don't actually like sockets all that much myself. They are hard > > > > to use from scripts, and many more people are familiar with open/close and > > > > read/write. > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > It would be nice to use open/close/read/write for control and bulk and >

no ioctls for serial ports? [was Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants]

Hi! > > > They might also be exactly the same channel, except with certain magic > > > bits set. The example peter gave was fine: tty devices could very usefully > > > be opened with something like > > > > > > fd = open("/dev/tty00/nonblock,9600,n8", O_RDWR); > > > > > > where we actually

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Lundell) wrote on 17.05.01 in : > At 11:23 PM +0200 2001-05-17, Kai Henningsen wrote: > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Lundell) wrote on 15.05.01 in > >: > > > >> What about: > >> > >> 1

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johannes Erdfelt) wrote on 17.05.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, May 17, 2001, Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johannes Erdfelt) wrote on 15.05.01 in > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > I had always made the assumption that sockets were

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johannes Erdfelt) wrote on 17.05.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, May 17, 2001, Kai Henningsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johannes Erdfelt) wrote on 15.05.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I had always made the assumption that sockets were created because

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Lundell) wrote on 17.05.01 in p05100301b72a335d4b61@[10.128.7.49]: At 11:23 PM +0200 2001-05-17, Kai Henningsen wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Lundell) wrote on 15.05.01 in p05100316b7272cdfd50c@[207.213.214.37]: What about: 1 (network domain). I

no ioctls for serial ports? [was Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants]

Hi! They might also be exactly the same channel, except with certain magic bits set. The example peter gave was fine: tty devices could very usefully be opened with something like fd = open(/dev/tty00/nonblock,9600,n8, O_RDWR); where we actually open up exactly the same

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

Hi! But no, I don't actually like sockets all that much myself. They are hard to use from scripts, and many more people are familiar with open/close and read/write. Agreed. It would be nice to use open/close/read/write for control and bulk and sockets for interrupt

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

Hi, On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 05:29:32PM +1200, Chris Wedgwood wrote: Or you can fall back to mounting by UUID, which is globally unique and still avoids referencing physical location. You also don't need to manually set LABELs for UUID to work: all e2fsprogs over the past

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

At 10:42 AM +0200 2001-05-19, Kai Henningsen wrote: Make your config script look at the hardware MAC addresses. Those don't change. They're not necessarily unique, though. So if you plug both into the same network segment, that segment is broken? That looks like very stupid design to

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

At 10:42 AM +0200 2001-05-19, Kai Henningsen wrote: Jeff Garzik's ethtool extension at least tells me the PCI bus/dev/fcn, though, and from that I can write a userland mapping function to the physical location. I don't see how PCI bus/dev/fcn lets you do that. I know from system

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

Chris Wedgwood wrote: Or you can fall back to mounting by UUID, which is globally unique and still avoids referencing physical location. You also don't need to manually set LABELs for UUID to work: all e2fsprogs over the past couple of years have set UUID on partitions, and

Re: no ioctls for serial ports? [was Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants]

Hi! fd = open(/dev/tty00/nonblock,9600,n8, O_RDWR); Hmm, there might be problem with this. How do you change speed without reopening device? [Remember: your mice knows when you close device] The naming scheme is not a replacement for these kinds of ioctl's - it's just

Re: no ioctls for serial ports? [was Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants]

Hi! Well, if we did something like modify(int fd, char *how), you could do modify(0, nonblock,9600) What you're really proposing is to make ioctl's be ASCII strings. Yup. Which is not necessarily a bad idea, and I think plan9 did something similar (or rather, if I remember

Re: no ioctls for serial ports? [was Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants]

On Saturday 19 May 2001 21:43, Pavel Machek wrote: I think that plan9 uses something different -- they have ttyS0 and ttyS0ctl. This would leave us with problem how do I get handle to ttyS0ctl when I only have handle to ttyS0? One possibility is to add multiforked (multi-stream) file support

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

> > They might also be exactly the same channel, except with certain magic > > bits set. The example peter gave was fine: tty devices could very usefully > > be opened with something like > > > > fd = open("/dev/tty00/nonblock,9600,n8", O_RDWR); > > > > where we actually open up exactly

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

On Wed, 16 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The same situation appears when using bonding.o. For several years, > > Don Becker's (and derived) network drivers support changing MAC address > > when the interface is down. So Al's /dev/eth//MAC has different > values > > depending on whether

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

On Thu, May 17, 2001, Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > But no, I don't actually like sockets all that much myself. They are hard > > > to use from scripts, and many more people are familiar with open/close and > > > read/write. > > > > Agreed. > > > > It would be nice to use

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

Hi! Hi! > They might also be exactly the same channel, except with certain magic > bits set. The example peter gave was fine: tty devices could very usefully > be opened with something like > > fd = open("/dev/tty00/nonblock,9600,n8", O_RDWR); > > where we actually open up exactly the

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

Hi! > > But no, I don't actually like sockets all that much myself. They are hard > > to use from scripts, and many more people are familiar with open/close and > > read/write. > > Agreed. > > It would be nice to use open/close/read/write for control and bulk and > sockets for interrupt and

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

Hi, On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 12:18:15PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: > With the current LABEL= support, you won't be able to mount the disks with > duplicate labels, but you can still mount them via /dev/sd. Or you can fall back to mounting by UUID, which is globally unique and still avoids

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 02:35:55AM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote: > Heinz J. Mauelshag writes: > > > LVM does a similar thing storing UUIDs in its private metadata > > area on every device used by it. > > > > Problem is: neither MD nor LVM define a standard in Linux > > which *needs* to be used

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

> > On Thursday 17 May 2001 22:00, Brian Wheeler wrote: > > Consider an ID consisting of: > > * vendor > > * model > > Vendor and model ids are available for PCI and USB devices, but I think you > can not assume that all busses have them and you dont gain anything if you > keep them

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

> > Consider an ID consisting of: > > * vendor > > * model > > Vendor and model ids are available for PCI and USB devices, but I think you > can not assume that all busses have them and you dont gain anything if you > keep them separate (unless you want to interpret the fields of the

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

On Thursday 17 May 2001 22:00, Brian Wheeler wrote: > Consider an ID consisting of: > * vendor > * model Vendor and model ids are available for PCI and USB devices, but I think you can not assume that all busses have them and you dont gain anything if you keep them separate (unless

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

On Thursday 17 May 2001 22:00, Brian Wheeler wrote: Consider an ID consisting of: * vendor * model Vendor and model ids are available for PCI and USB devices, but I think you can not assume that all busses have them and you dont gain anything if you keep them separate (unless

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

Consider an ID consisting of: * vendor * model Vendor and model ids are available for PCI and USB devices, but I think you can not assume that all busses have them and you dont gain anything if you keep them separate (unless you want to interpret the fields of the device id).

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

On Thursday 17 May 2001 22:00, Brian Wheeler wrote: Consider an ID consisting of: * vendor * model Vendor and model ids are available for PCI and USB devices, but I think you can not assume that all busses have them and you dont gain anything if you keep them separate

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 02:35:55AM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote: Heinz J. Mauelshag writes: LVM does a similar thing storing UUIDs in its private metadata area on every device used by it. Problem is: neither MD nor LVM define a standard in Linux which *needs* to be used on every

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

Hi, On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 12:18:15PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: With the current LABEL= support, you won't be able to mount the disks with duplicate labels, but you can still mount them via /dev/sdxxx. Or you can fall back to mounting by UUID, which is globally unique and still avoids

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

Hi! Hi! They might also be exactly the same channel, except with certain magic bits set. The example peter gave was fine: tty devices could very usefully be opened with something like fd = open(/dev/tty00/nonblock,9600,n8, O_RDWR); where we actually open up exactly the same

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

Hi! But no, I don't actually like sockets all that much myself. They are hard to use from scripts, and many more people are familiar with open/close and read/write. Agreed. It would be nice to use open/close/read/write for control and bulk and sockets for interrupt and isochronous.

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

On Thu, May 17, 2001, Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But no, I don't actually like sockets all that much myself. They are hard to use from scripts, and many more people are familiar with open/close and read/write. Agreed. It would be nice to use open/close/read/write for

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

On Wed, 16 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The same situation appears when using bonding.o. For several years, Don Becker's (and derived) network drivers support changing MAC address when the interface is down. So Al's /dev/eth/n/MAC has different values depending on whether bonding is

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

They might also be exactly the same channel, except with certain magic bits set. The example peter gave was fine: tty devices could very usefully be opened with something like fd = open(/dev/tty00/nonblock,9600,n8, O_RDWR); where we actually open up exactly the same channel

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

At 11:23 PM +0200 2001-05-17, Kai Henningsen wrote: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Lundell) wrote on 15.05.01 in >: > >> What about: >> >> 1 (network domain). I have two network interfaces that I connect to >> two different network segments, eth0 & eth1;

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

On Thu, May 17, 2001, Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johannes Erdfelt) wrote on 15.05.01 in ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I had always made the assumption that sockets were created because you > > couldn't easily map IPv4 semantics onto filesystems. It's

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (H. Peter Anvin) wrote on 16.05.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > At some point something talks to the device -- in this case, it's the > SCSI layer. Follow the interfaces in the kernel and it becomes obvious. rc = sys_iskind(int filehandle, const char *driverkind) rc = 0 or

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Gooch) wrote on 16.05.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > H. Peter Anvin writes: > > Richard Gooch wrote: > > > > > > H. Peter Anvin writes: > > > > Richard Gooch wrote: > > > > > Argh! What I wrote in text is what I meant to say. The code didn't > > > > > match. No wonder

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Lundell) wrote on 15.05.01 in : > What about: > > 1 (network domain). I have two network interfaces that I connect to > two different network segments, eth0 & eth1; they're ifconfig'd to > the appropriate IP and MAC addresses.

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linus Torvalds) wrote on 15.05.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > They might also be exactly the same channel, except with certain magic > bits set. The example peter gave was fine: tty devices could very usefully > be opened with something like > > fd =

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johannes Erdfelt) wrote on 15.05.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I had always made the assumption that sockets were created because you > couldn't easily map IPv4 semantics onto filesystems. It's unreasonable > to have a file for every possible IP address/port you can

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

On Thursday, 17. May 2001 18:58, Tim Jansen wrote: > On Thursday 17 May 2001 08:43, Thomas Sailer wrote: > > Cheap USB devices (and sometimes even expensive ones) > > do not have serial numbers or other unique identifiers. > > Therefore some sort of topology based addressing scheme > > has to be

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[ I normally just lurk and read the archives, but...here's where I get into trouble! ] It seems to me that there are several issues that have come up in this thread, but here are my thoughts on some of them: * Identifying hardware: Since we don't want to use topology as the primary

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Tuesday 15 May 2001 23:20, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > Personally, I'd really like to see /dev/ttyS0 be the first detected > > > serial port on a system, /dev/ttyS1 the second, etc. > > > > There are well-defined rules

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

At the risk of offending hundreds, I'll mention that dynamic naming of disks and tapes has worked very well for many years in VMS. When you e.g. mount a disk volume labelled FOO, the system creates a system logical name DISK$FOO: for it automagically. Users don't care that it's really $4$DUA7:

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

On Thursday 17 May 2001 19:18, you wrote: > I wouldn't make that assumpation. I have two PS/2 keybaords attached to my > system and they don't have serial ids nor do they have vendor or product > ids. Yes, PS/2 is a system where you must use the location. That's why a device id must contain the

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

On Thu, 17 May 2001, James Simmons wrote: > > No, there is another addressing scheme that can be for devices without serial > > number: the vendor and product ids. Most people do not have two devices of > > the same kind, so you often do not need the topology at all. > > I wouldn't make that

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

> No, there is another addressing scheme that can be for devices without serial > number: the vendor and product ids. Most people do not have two devices of > the same kind, so you often do not need the topology at all. I wouldn't make that assumpation. I have two PS/2 keybaords attached to

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tuesday 15 May 2001 23:20, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > Personally, I'd really like to see /dev/ttyS0 be the first detected > > serial port on a system, /dev/ttyS1 the second, etc. > > There are well-defined rules for the first four on PC's. The

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

> For identifying this is probably the right approach. However identifying is > not enough, as the ioctl discussion has shown. Capabilities are needed. How > can the device registry provide that information ? My feedback on "device registry 0.1" was that I really liked the approach of

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

> Hmm. It's interesting to me that there have been no replies discussing > Tim's code. Are any of you looking at it or do you simply think it is > inconsequential and deserves to be ignored? > Or, perhaps folks feel that it is off-topic? Haven't had the chance to look at it. This weekend I

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

On Thursday 17 May 2001 08:43, Thomas Sailer wrote: > Cheap USB devices (and sometimes even expensive ones) > do not have serial numbers or other unique identifiers. > Therefore some sort of topology based addressing scheme > has to be used in that case. No, there is another addressing scheme

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

On Thursday 17 May 2001 14:07, you wrote: > For identifying this is probably the right approach. However identifying is > not enough, as the ioctl discussion has shown. Capabilities are needed. How > can the device registry provide that information ? The device registry provides you with

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

> > > USB disks are required (haha etc) to have serial numbers. Firewire similarly > > > has unique disk identifiers. > > > > How about for other device classes? > > Keyboards and mice dont which is a real pig because it prevents you using > dual head, two usb keyboards and 2 usb mice for a

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

> > At this point of the discussion I would like to point to the Device Registry > > patch (http://www.tjansen.de/devreg) that already solves these problems and > > offers stable device ids for the identification of devices and finding their > > /dev nodes. > > > > The devreg device id has

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

> Since, as Alan mentioned, the lack of device serial numbers for USB mice > and keyboards means that the only way to implement a relatively stable > assignment of USB input devices to a quasi-multiuser system with > multi-headed displays is by paying attention to USB topology, I would > like us

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

> Linus, Is that wise? I could understand moratorium during 2.5, but during 2.4?! > And worse, what about drivers that want to be merged into 2.2? 2.2 will be using the same forked registry as 2.4-ac. I dont anticipate much being added to it that will need a major however - To unsubscribe from

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 04:46:33AM +0200, Willem Konynenberg wrote: > I think here we might learn from the comments that people made > about how AIX and OSF/1/Tru64 have been doing this. However, I suspect that generally AIX and OSF/1 Tru64 systems come with system managers. Many Linux system

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 02:35:55AM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote: > The PC partition table has such an ID. The LILO change log > mentions it. I think it's 6 random bytes, with some restriction > about being non-zero. You are confused. The partition table contains IDs, but these are the numbers

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 09:35:09PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > To inject a bit of concrete into this discussion, I note that block > devices with dynamically assigned don't work with CONFIG_DEVFS and > devfs=only. Block devices -require- majors currently, due to those > !@#!@# arrays. However,

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

> I disagree that the kernel should apply sequence numbers You did not read my text. I do not propose the kernel should. (Quite the contrary, in fact.) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

On Thu, 17 May 2001, Alan Cox wrote: > > > USB disks are required (haha etc) to have serial numbers. Firewire similarly > > > has unique disk identifiers. > > > > How about for other device classes? > > Keyboards and mice dont which is a real pig because it prevents you using > dual head, two

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

Hi! > First of all, I apologize for not having sent this notice out sooner. > This kind of writing is very painful to deal with. > > Linus Torvalds has requested a moratorium on new device number > assignments. His hope is that a new and better method for device space > handing will emerge as

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

"H. Peter Anvin" schrieb: > How about for other device classes? Cheap USB devices (and sometimes even expensive ones) do not have serial numbers or other unique identifiers. Therefore some sort of topology based addressing scheme has to be used in that case. Tom - To unsubscribe from this

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

Heinz J. Mauelshag writes: > LVM does a similar thing storing UUIDs in its private metadata > area on every device used by it. > > Problem is: neither MD nor LVM define a standard in Linux > which *needs* to be used on every device! > > It is just up to the user to configure devices with them or

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

Heinz J. Mauelshag writes: LVM does a similar thing storing UUIDs in its private metadata area on every device used by it. Problem is: neither MD nor LVM define a standard in Linux which *needs* to be used on every device! It is just up to the user to configure devices with them or not.

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

H. Peter Anvin schrieb: How about for other device classes? Cheap USB devices (and sometimes even expensive ones) do not have serial numbers or other unique identifiers. Therefore some sort of topology based addressing scheme has to be used in that case. Tom - To unsubscribe from this list:

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

On Thu, 17 May 2001, Alan Cox wrote: USB disks are required (haha etc) to have serial numbers. Firewire similarly has unique disk identifiers. How about for other device classes? Keyboards and mice dont which is a real pig because it prevents you using dual head, two usb keyboards

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

I disagree that the kernel should apply sequence numbers You did not read my text. I do not propose the kernel should. (Quite the contrary, in fact.) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 09:35:09PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: To inject a bit of concrete into this discussion, I note that block devices with dynamically assigned don't work with CONFIG_DEVFS and devfs=only. Block devices -require- majors currently, due to those !@#!@# arrays. However,

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 02:35:55AM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote: The PC partition table has such an ID. The LILO change log mentions it. I think it's 6 random bytes, with some restriction about being non-zero. You are confused. The partition table contains IDs, but these are the numbers

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 04:46:33AM +0200, Willem Konynenberg wrote: I think here we might learn from the comments that people made about how AIX and OSF/1/Tru64 have been doing this. However, I suspect that generally AIX and OSF/1 Tru64 systems come with system managers. Many Linux system do

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

Linus, Is that wise? I could understand moratorium during 2.5, but during 2.4?! And worse, what about drivers that want to be merged into 2.2? 2.2 will be using the same forked registry as 2.4-ac. I dont anticipate much being added to it that will need a major however - To unsubscribe from

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

Since, as Alan mentioned, the lack of device serial numbers for USB mice and keyboards means that the only way to implement a relatively stable assignment of USB input devices to a quasi-multiuser system with multi-headed displays is by paying attention to USB topology, I would like us to

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

At this point of the discussion I would like to point to the Device Registry patch (http://www.tjansen.de/devreg) that already solves these problems and offers stable device ids for the identification of devices and finding their /dev nodes. The devreg device id has four

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

USB disks are required (haha etc) to have serial numbers. Firewire similarly has unique disk identifiers. How about for other device classes? Keyboards and mice dont which is a real pig because it prevents you using dual head, two usb keyboards and 2 usb mice for a dual user box

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

On Thursday 17 May 2001 14:07, you wrote: For identifying this is probably the right approach. However identifying is not enough, as the ioctl discussion has shown. Capabilities are needed. How can the device registry provide that information ? The device registry provides you with device's

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

On Thursday 17 May 2001 08:43, Thomas Sailer wrote: Cheap USB devices (and sometimes even expensive ones) do not have serial numbers or other unique identifiers. Therefore some sort of topology based addressing scheme has to be used in that case. No, there is another addressing scheme that

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

Hmm. It's interesting to me that there have been no replies discussing Tim's code. Are any of you looking at it or do you simply think it is inconsequential and deserves to be ignored? Or, perhaps folks feel that it is off-topic? Haven't had the chance to look at it. This weekend I will

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

For identifying this is probably the right approach. However identifying is not enough, as the ioctl discussion has shown. Capabilities are needed. How can the device registry provide that information ? My feedback on device registry 0.1 was that I really liked the approach of _modeling_

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tuesday 15 May 2001 23:20, Nicolas Pitre wrote: Personally, I'd really like to see /dev/ttyS0 be the first detected serial port on a system, /dev/ttyS1 the second, etc. There are well-defined rules for the first four on PC's. The ttySx

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >