[Top] [All Lists]

Re: /dev/sound

To: "Nathan J. Mehl" <memory@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: /dev/sound
From: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:07:39 -0500
Cc: Alan Eldridge <alane@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dusan <dusan@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0106242053080.7937-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010625003153.A4433@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010625015117.M8330@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
"Nathan J. Mehl" wrote:

> In the immortal words of Alan Eldridge (alane@xxxxxxxxxxxx):
> > WARNING. HEAV:Y SARCASM AHEAD. It's late, and these are things that bit me
> > and generally annoyed the crap out of me when I ws getting 7.1 up and
> > running. These things are *not* the fault of the SGI dudes! It's the kernel
> > interface from hell... yes, it's (shield your kid's eyes, folks, you don't
> > want them to see this) DEVFS.
> Eh.  Devfs itself is fine.  Coming from a solaris background, it's
> nice to see one of the free unices catch up and join the mid-90s.

Right with you on this one.

> Of
> course, it would be even nicer if devfs' namespace in some way
> corresponded to the bios' view of the system bus (a la OpenBoot), but
> we can't really hold Richard Gooch responsible for lousy design

> decisions made by IBM ~15 years ago...

It always amazes me how sometimes the worst designs are the
most popular, guess money does really talk or in this case what
cost less talks.

> I suspect that a lot of the pain will Go Away once (well, if) one of
> the "big three" distributions (redhat/suse/debian) take the leap and
> enable it for their next release.  What devfs/devfsd need more than
> anything else now is a solid run through an organized QA cycle.  In
> that respect I'm grateful to SGI for sneaking it into the XFS 1.0
> release -- the archives of this list will provide good starting
> material for whoever wants to make their distribution work with it.
> (Hint hint, redhat lurkers. :)

This is right on! while devfs isn't necessary for XFS it will be crucial in
the future  for salability and the management of large disk farms.

I made the decision for XFS 1.0 to enable devfs by default knowing very well
that many apps would have issues. But given that none of the distributions
are working to clean up apps to be devfs friendly this seemed like a good
test bed to smoke out some of the problems.

In retrospect it was a bit of a headache to deal with since every devfs question
our way rather than to the devfs lists.

What is apparent at this time, most people do not have large disk farms
and as such can work quite comfortably in the current but horribly broken
device naming scheme.  The current plan (and I think Eric already did this)
is to enable devfs but not have it mount on /dev by default. This will allow for
mounting either on /dev or some other mount point such as /devfs but only
as an option.

Hopefully one of the big distros will bit the bullet and start fixing the
apps that are not devfs friendly.

Russell Cattelan

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