Ian Pilcher <arequipeno@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > It's not absolutely needed, but it does make it easier to unlink an LED > from all devices by using the names of the symlinks in the LED's > linked_devices directory, which will be kernel names. Yes, I agree that things are much easier if those names can be fed directly into the unlink attribute. And even better if the names in the linked_devices directory actually matched what you used to link them. So why not go for "major:minor" everywhere? I.e for link, unlink and also for the symlinks in linked_devices. >> And if file name with symlink resolution really is a problem, then why >> can't you use the major:minor for link/unlink? That's easy for >> userspace to look up whether the input is a device path or a sysfs path. >> And it avoids having to wait for an unrelated and unnecessary device >> path creation. >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/usb/core/ledtrig-usbport.c >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/drivers/usb/core/ledtrig-usbport.c?id=0f247626cbbfa2010d2b86fdee652605e084e248 > > Personally, I don't think that using file paths is a problem, and it > can be useful. ("/dev/vg_root/lv_root" is probably more useful than > "dm-0".) OTOH, "sda" is slightly simpler than "/dev/sda", so I think > that the ideal situation would be to have both interfaces available. > > I did propose using device numbers. I never received a response from > the maintainer. I believe that's how most maintainers work unless the proposal was in patch form :-) Bjørn _______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
