xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: labels resolved (was Re: XFS volume labels)

To: Juha Saarinen <juha@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: labels resolved (was Re: XFS volume labels)
From: cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 00:12:25 -0500
Cc: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ed McKenzie <eem12@xxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <KPECIILENDDLPCNIMLOFIEHGCAAA.juha@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <dlcr8z87yce.wl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <KPECIILENDDLPCNIMLOFIEHGCAAA.juha@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.4.0 (Rio) SEMI/1.13.7 (Awazu) FLIM/1.13.2 (Kasanui) MULE XEmacs/21.1 (patch 14) (Cuyahoga Valley) (i386--freebsd)
At Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:08:01 +1200,
Juha Saarinen wrote:
> 
> :: So yes devfs will remain turned on unless significant problems are
> :: encountered.
> 
> Just out of curiosity (missed the first bit of this thread), are there any
> known issues with XFS and devfs?

As far as XFS is concerned no, it doesn't even know the difference.
A dev just a major and minor number as far as XFS is concerned.

The big win with devfs is device names do NOT move when other
devices are removed from the system.
(provided you use devfs device names and not the old standard names)

> 
> -- Juha

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>