Crazy Idea: Replacing /dev using sysfs over time

I wonder if in the future, we can just eliminate /dev altogether (or map it 
via sysfs until older apps move away from /dev). It just seems we could 
represent major,minor in a sysfs node: 

        /sys/class/block/
        `-- sda
            |-- sda1
                    | - major
                    | - minor
                    | - raw
            |-- sda2
                    | - major
                    | - minor
                    | - raw
            `-- sda3

and so forth, or under a different branch elsewhere.

Does it make sense? Logical? Illogical? Do we really need /dev other than for 
historical/legacy purposes?

Shawn.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Crazy Idea: Replacing /dev using sysfs over time
    • From: "linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)" <[email protected]>
  • Re: Crazy Idea: Replacing /dev using sysfs over time
    • From: Greg KH <[email protected]>
  • Re: Crazy Idea: Replacing /dev using sysfs over time
    • From: Shawn Starr <[email protected]>
  • Re: Crazy Idea: Replacing /dev using sysfs over time
    • From: Diego Calleja <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] x86-64: Fix bad assumption that dualcore cpus have synced TSCs (resend)
• Next by Date: RE: [RFT][PATCH] i386 per cpu IDT (2.6.12-rc1-mm1)
• Previous by thread: [PATCH] Make phys_mem_access_prot() work with pfns instead of addresses
• Next by thread: Re: Crazy Idea: Replacing /dev using sysfs over time
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]