Re: /proc/partitions does not match /dev
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
Reply to: