Re: /proc/partitions does not match /dev

From: David Z Maze (dmaze_at_debian.org)
Date: 07/22/03

  • Next message: John Hasler: "Re: First mail from my Linux"
    To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
    Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 10:27:54 -0400
    
    

    bxf4@psu.edu (Brian P. Flaherty) writes:

    > Today I built my own kernel 2.4.21 and when I run lilo, I get the
    > following message:
    >
    > Warning: '/proc/partitions' does not match '/dev' directory structure.
    > Name change: '/dev/ide/host0/bus0/target0/lun0/disk' -> '/dev/hda'
    > The kenrel was compiled with DEVFS_FS, but 'devfs=mount' was
    > omitted as a kernel command-line boot parameter; hence, the '/dev'
    > directory structure does not reflect DEVFS_FS device names.

    Hmm. I don't know if this is actually a problem or not; the two names
    LILO gives in the second line of the message are equivalent (for devfs
    and non-devfs space, respectively).

    > I did not originally include devfs in my kernel config, but I got this
    > message from lilo and so I went back and added it. I still get this
    > warning message after adding devfs to the kernel and putting
    > 'append="devfs=mount" in lilo.conf (as a global option and as an image
    > option).

    If you do this, you should also make sure you have devfsd installed;
    otherwise, names you'll expect to see (/dev/hda2, /dev/tty1) just
    won't exist.

    > From reading the search results, it sounds like devfs is a mixed bag
    > and I don't think I need it. But, then again, I might. How do I
    > decide this?

    It's a personal-taste thing. On my unstable machines, I generally go
    with devfs, and even go as far as rewriting /etc/fstab and
    /etc/inittab to use devfs device names and foregoing the old device
    names entirely. This makes it possible to 'ls /dev' and get several
    lines, rather than several pages, of output, since the only device
    files that exist correspond to actual devices with drivers loaded. On
    the other hand, if watertown broke and somebody with Linux clue but
    not deep devfs clue tried to fix it, the lack of a /dev/hda2 would
    really confuse them. I've also heard rumors that devfs will be
    unsupported in kernel 2.6, though don't know for sure.

    -- 
    David Maze         dmaze@debian.org      http://people.debian.org/~dmaze/
    "Theoretical politics is interesting.  Politicking should be illegal."
    	-- Abra Mitchell
    -- 
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org 
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
    

  • Next message: John Hasler: "Re: First mail from my Linux"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Remove devfs from 2.6.13
      ... way to the kernel archives. ... >> new features since long before devfs went into the kernel. ... > first version of udev, a binary about 5k in size, pretty much ... > ndevfs does not support subdirectories. ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: Development tree, PLEASE?
      ... As far as fixing there are modules that have been developped to run various embedded peripherals that must be reworked to use the newer kernel versions, which wouldn't be a problem if there weren't various other fixes that were needed which means moving up point revs. ... I'm guessing that maybe it's fixed somewhere in between 2.6.8 and 15 but until I find and backport fixes to something with devfs I won't be able to find out. ... I think I have more kernel bugs and can go on, but I'll just be told 'upgrade to 2.6.15' which is not an option in many cases if these are indeed development releases, if only 'politically', but there are often real costs involved. ... abandon Linux altogether. ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: Development tree, PLEASE?
      ... The problem is that there's no more stable kernel first, and secondly that there's not much if any pointers abotu the change. ... I could hardly give a rats ass about devfs. ... It's the whole new development model that's the problem, and will only get worse for the types of companies who I work with who normally right now support Linux development. ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: DEVFS is very good compared to UDEV
      ... >> has been marked OBSOLETE in 2.6 kernel. ... > just the presence of udev. ... Devfs is also buggy, ... >> kernel and configure the programs to use DEVFS ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: devfs vs udev, thoughts from a devfs user
      ... To the kernel, it's basically the ... Because then you have devfs, which is not what we are trying to do here. ... > one kernel-generated filesystem and put everything in there. ... to do with udev though.... ...
      (Linux-Kernel)