Ian Pilcher <arequipeno@gmail.com> 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/driv... https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/dr...
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