Re: (Semi-random) thoughts on device tree structure and devfs

[Masao Uebayashi <uebayasi%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:04 AM, der Mouse 
<mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost> 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