On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 05:05:45PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > Hi guys, using wheezy and sid here. > > Been googling a lot, wanting to know recommendations/suggestions re > /dev/loop0 and > /dev/loop/0 > (or etc variants) > > Have not been able to find a clear exposition of suggestion of if/why > one or the other /dev/ layout is indicated.
My guess would be that /dev/loop0 is the old naming and /dev/loop/0 is the new naming. Back in the old days, /dev was a static directory, and would come populated with nodes for the devices that most people would need. So you'd get half a dozen ttyS* nodes, even if you only had one serial port on your system. If you had a dozen, you were expected to mknod the device nodes yourself. Then, in time, came the idea of a dynamic /dev directory. The idea being that, if the kernel detected a dozen serial ports, you'd get that many device nodes. This led to the creation of devfs and then udev. So, with the advent of udev, we get two relevant facts, the ability to create as many device nodes as needed and (with it being a user-space utility), plenty of scope for naming those devices. So it would appear that, rather than giving you a handful of /dev/loop* devices, these have been moved into a subdirectory and will get generated on the fly. As is often the case, though, some software still expects the "old-style" naming, so you'll probably find there's still a /dev/loop0 which is a symlink to /dev/loop/0. This isn't a definitive answer, just my interpretation. > > Clarifications appreciated. > > TIA > Zenaan > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: > http://lists.debian.org/CAOsGNSThRQ9zawZ8ex3ew3GKzzscGGZgrsSiNuZ5Vq=0du4...@mail.gmail.com >
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
