Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 06 Jun 1999 00:27:43 -0700 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: Migrating to larger numbers |
| |
Rogier Wolff wrote: > > H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > Guest section DW wrote: > > > > > > > And so how do you distinguish between (0,2000) and (7,208)? > > > > > > I do not. > > > > > > (But (0,2000) is not normalized and hence would not normally occur.) > > > > > > > "Normalized"? We need to support more than 255 anonymous devices. I > > believe your basic idea is good, but the only possible escape number is > > ~0, not 0. > > Peter, > > Hmmm. If I get this correctly, my kernel draws a new number from > it's hat when I mount /proc or an NFS mount? > > Well, from the isofs specification, we can conclude that it is highly > frowned upon to use major 0 for anything. We might consider moving > THAT. On the other hand, the major 0 thingy is completely inside the > kernel, so that it would never be handed to the conversion routine > anyway. >
That's a good point, actually. I don't know how much in the kernel would break if we moved unnamed devices away from 0. Perhaps we should leave 0:0 as the null device and use another major for the anonymous devices.
-hpa
-- "The user's computer downloads the ActiveX code and simulates a 'Blue Screen' crash, a generally benign event most users are familiar with and that would not necessarily arouse suspicions." -- Security exploit description on http://www.zks.net/p3/how.asp
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |