On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 11:47:35PM -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 15:42 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 03:26:15PM -0800, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> > > On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:50:19 -0800, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > $ ls -l /sys/block/uba/device/
> > > > -r--r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Dec 13 21:31 bNumEndpoints
> > > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Dec 13 21:31 block:uba -> ../../../../../../block/uba
> > > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Dec 13 21:31 block:ubb -> ../../../../../../block/ubb
> > > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Dec 13 21:31 block:ubc -> ../../../../../../block/ubc
> > > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Dec 13 21:31 block:ubd -> ../../../../../../block/ubd
> > >
> > > Greg, Jeremy is not happy about this.
> > >
> > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175563
> > > > ------- Additional Comments From [email protected] 2005-12-14 18:05 EST -------
> > > > Actually, this is problematic. It makes it so that the single device directory
> > > > corresponds to more than one device which we can't handle with kudzu :-(
> >
> > Well, how do you handle it for class devices then?
>
> We don't have any where we need to handle it at present.
>
> > And if this isn't acceptable, what would be?
>
> By going this route, it really feels like you're hacking around your own
> rule of a single value per file :-) Except that instead of having a
> file that I read five values from, it's five files with naming
> heuristics to get five values. Which is, in a lot of ways, worse.
What? These are symlinks, not files. Why would you want to read the
name of the block device from a file and then go have to look that
location up, instead of just following the symlink?
> I'd much rather see the fact that there are multiple devices be handled
> by having each device with its own unique directory. This then keeps
> all of the abstractions which currently exist.
Those devices do have their own unique directory. Look at the pointer
above :)
The point here is that multiple class devices and block devices can bind
to a single "real device" in the system, and we need to handle that
representation properly. We have had the symlink for a while now, and I
just forgot to put the proper name on the block device one, to match up
with the class device naming.
thanks,
greg k-h
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]