On 7 June 2016 at 10:00, Robert Elz <[email protected]> wrote: > Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 18:35:43 +0200 > From: Edgar =?iso-8859-1?B?RnXf?= <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > | > ie /dev/wd1 is a link to /dev/wd1d on i386 (etc) or /dev/wd1c (on sparc > etc) > | YES. > > I offer attached alternate patches, the first makes /dev/wd0 as a chrdev > and the second as a link. > > I do not have all the various architectures that have the various different > strategies for naming and minor-numbering disk devices to test this thoroughly > though, but what I have tested seems to work, and the changes (both versions) > are so simple they seem unlikely to fail (and if they do, the effect would > just be that the new nodes would not be correct, all the ones we're used to > having would be fine, so simply removing the bogus ones would return the > universe to its current state.) > > I prefer the chrdev version ... it is robust against removal of the ?dNx > node names, which (sometime later, after tools/scripts have been adapted > not to seek out the ?dN[cd] device names explicitly) might be something to > do on a system using GPT and wedges (or even disklabel wedge autodiscovery). > It also will provoke any lingering bugs if anything is currently relying on > vnode locking for device exclusivity (with two different vnodes for the same > underlying device). But either version should work (only one of them > of course!) > > Either version consumes 2 more names, and inodes, per disk device configured. > > Opinions?
Also would prefer the chrdev version. We probably want to ensure these are added to install media as well (which may push some of them over a current inode limit but that is much less of a tweak than the ongoing kernel growth :)
