At Sun, 7 Mar 2010 20:50:03 +0000, Quentin Garnier <c...@cubidou.net> wrote: Subject: Re: (Semi-random) thoughts on device tree structure and devfs > > On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 06:43:49PM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote: > [...] > You're barking up the wrong tree. What's annoying is not that the > numbering changes. It is that the numbering is relevant to the use of > the device. I expect dk(4) devices to be given names (be it real names > or GUIDs), and I expect to be able to use that whenever I currently have > to use a string of the form "dkN".
Indeed. This needs carving in stone somewhere, since folks seem to
forget it. I think even I have been known to forget it sometimes. ;-)
> Wrong. Device numbers should be irrelevant to anything but operations
> on device_t objects.
Indeed.
--
Greg A. Woods
Planix, Inc.
<wo...@planix.com> +1 416 218 0099 http://www.planix.com/
pgpI8t1YQjNaV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
