Re: Larger dev_t

From: Bart Trojanowski (bart@jukie.net)
Date: Tue Apr 03 2001 - 10:34:11 EST


On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Wayne.Brown@altec.com wrote:

> Ingo Oeser <ingo.oeser@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de> wrote:
>
> >Yes: Let "mknod /dev/foo [bc] x y" die!
>
> I hope this never happens. Improving the major/minor device scheme is
> reasonable; abandoning it would be a sad occurrence. It would make Linux too
> "un-UNIXish" (how's THAT for an an ugly neologism!) for my tastes.

I don't know... the command 'mknod' should probably remain for
compatibility reasons. But the way that it does create the node can be
completely different. For example the call could just be a wrapper to a
syscall or a write to a proc file.

I think Ingo had qualms with the process of creating of a device file
which is totally detached of the kernel's ability to service that device.

But I am with you. The compatibility between *NIX should not be severed
so fast.

B.

-- 
	WebSig: http://www.jukie.net/~bart/sig/

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 07 2001 - 21:00:12 EST