From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264479AbUADCto (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Jan 2004 21:49:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264586AbUADCtn (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Jan 2004 21:49:43 -0500 Received: from mailhost.tue.nl ([131.155.2.7]:27658 "EHLO mailhost.tue.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264479AbUADCtm (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Jan 2004 21:49:42 -0500 Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 03:49:34 +0100 From: Andries Brouwer To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andries Brouwer , Rob Love , rob@landley.net, Pascal Schmidt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH Subject: Re: udev and devfs - The final word Message-ID: <20040104034934.A3669@pclin040.win.tue.nl> References: <1072970573.3975.3.camel@fur> <20040101164831.A2431@pclin040.win.tue.nl> <1072972440.3975.29.camel@fur> <20040103040013.A3100@pclin040.win.tue.nl> <20040103141029.B3393@pclin040.win.tue.nl> <20040104000840.A3625@pclin040.win.tue.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from torvalds@osdl.org on Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 06:09:47PM -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 06:09:47PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, Andries Brouwer wrote: > > Empty talk. This is not about finding and fixing bugs. > > We know very precisely what properties the NFS protocol has. > > Now one can have a system that works as well as possible with NFS. > > And one can have a worse system. > > Oh, things can be _much_ worse than /dev over NFS. Yes, but why do you start saying that? Our topic is the statement that it is good to have device numbers stable across a reboot. Not absolutely necessary, but good. For example, given an NFS mount, if the server reboots and suddenly the client sees different stat data, that would be less than optimal. A low quality NFS implementation. You write long stories - but it really is desirable to have stable device numbers. > You don't seem to realize what I mean with "not enumerable". One of your side avenues is the matter of enumeration. I don't see why that would be relevant. One identifies things by their UUID. Order is never important. > And there just _isn't_ any way to make them the same or to "describe" the > storage in any integer of any finite length. It has nothing to do with > 32-bit vs 64-bit vs 1024-bit. A UUID usually takes 128 bits. Andries