|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

The return of devfs

The return of devfs

Posted May 7, 2009 9:50 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769)
In reply to: The return of devfs by mjthayer
Parent article: The return of devfs

Me too. Why is it considered 'policy' (bad! bad!) for the kernel to specify the name of the device file, but perfectly okay (in classical UNIX terms) to have fixed major and minor device numbers? Surely the major and minor numbers are just as much policy as the name. If users really want their own names they can easily say 'ln -s /dev/kernel_name /dev/my_weird_name', just as easily as 'mknod /dev/my_weird_name b major minor'.


to post comments

The return of devfs

Posted May 8, 2009 16:14 UTC (Fri) by rmini (subscriber, #4991) [Link]

You can't set ownership or permissions with symlinks, where you can with device nodes. That's probably the more important part of policy than symlinks. Additionally, some devices are difficult to name persistently.


Copyright © 2026, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds