Joerg Schilling writes:
> >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Feb 12 01:50:02 1999
> >That may well be. My point is that I consider such a system
> >fragile. It also puts the same information in two places: in the
> >kernel and in the scripts. This is one of the things I dislike with
> >the existing Linux device number scheme: there are two separate
> >repositories of the same information, one in the kernel sources and
> >one in MAKEDEV (or /dev if you prefer). Things can get out of sync.
>
> >No, I don't consider Documentation/devices.txt to be the
> >repository. It may be *intended* that way, but it is not how it
> >works. The *real* repositories are in the kernel sources and the
> >source to MAKEDEV (or in /dev).
>
> Important is, that the /devices directory is not for direct use.
> There may be left over nodes in there but this doesn't matter if
> the synlinks from /dev are removed correctly. I see no discrepance
> between this. There is only one place where the knowledge about device
> nodes and their names is located: the driver
> When it calls ddi_create_minor_node(), it created the /device
> nodes as needed.
Our experience was that the symlinks were not removed.
But that's an aside. My point is that the information *is* kept in two
places. It's kept in the driver, and its *also kept in the
scripts*. Think about it: the scripts have to know the names of
devices in /devices. Why bother? Just populate /dev directly.
Regards,
Richard....
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
