On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:04 AM, der Mouse <mo...@rodents-montreal.org> wrote: >> Nah, I don't see any gains. Only losses. The current entries in >> /dev is working better than this, in combination with MAKEDEV, [...] > > For your use cases, yes, perhaps. My use cases too, most of them at > least. But there are other use cases (some of them reasonable, even :) > which the traditional /dev does not support well, such as the "I want > the disk with UUID xyz to appear at some fixed place regardless of > whether it's on SCSI, USB, firewire, bluetooth, or what" one that's > been mentioned upthread. Those use cases, the ones /dev does not > handle well, are what are driving devfs.
Now it's obvious that we need an explicit "switch"; which we use, either "static" (legacy, current behavior) or "dynamic" (devfs, hot-plug friendly, but backward incompatible / standard inconformant). Masao
