From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Jul 26 11: 3:10 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from feral.com (feral.com [192.67.166.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9D6C37BBAE; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 11:03:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mjacob@feral.com) Received: from beppo.feral.com (beppo [192.67.166.79]) by feral.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA01774; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 11:03:06 -0700 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 11:03:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Jacob Reply-To: mjacob@feral.com To: Adrian Chadd Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: How much do we need the all-singing, all-dancing devfs? In-Reply-To: <20000726095611.B68912@ywing.creative.net.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > ok. There should not be a reason why you can't simply register your FC > devices as '/dev/fc/$label' or even '/dev/$label' rather than '/dev/da1a'. > A "true" devfs would not pretend to impose a "%s%d", majorstring, minorunit > type namespace in front of all devices, and so neither should you. > If you have a generic FC layer which handles mapping physical devices to > logical devices, I can't see a problem here. I don't have a problem other then the lack of existence of a devfs I can use today, no, I suppose not. I'd rather, as I keep saying, have both- certainly if there's any possibility of *not* having a devfs I can use soon. > > Without understand how the disklabel code works, I then can't see a reason > why a generic 'disklabel' layer can't be introduced for interested devices > to supply their own label rather than be given da/ad -- and furthering that, > register multiple device names for the same devsw. The addalias and friends > in the existing VFS code will handle multiple namespace entries for the > same device, which is what works right now. Well, okay, whatever.... -matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message