Messages in this thread | | | From | (H. Peter Anvin) | Subject | Re: Migrating to larger numbers | Date | 7 Jun 1999 20:32:17 GMT |
| |
Followup to: <7jh79o$ov1@pell.pell.portland.or.us> By author: o.r.c@p.e.l.l.p.o.r.t.l.a.n.d.o.r.u.s (david parsons) In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > In article <linux.kernel.375B224A.6F78B302@transmeta.com>, > H. Peter Anvin <hpa@transmeta.com> wrote: > (dev_t) > > > I suggest, as you say, a 32:32 split (it's simple). > > 4 billion major numbers? > > I'd think a 12:20 split (and a 32-bit number, which has the > advantage of being standard C and not depending on gcc or some > yet-unapproved standard of the week) would be far more sensible > for moderately-sized system (who is going to remember all of > these major and minor numbers? I'm still occasionally being > bitten by the reworking of the ide1 major number) while something > like devfs where the device drivers actually export their > interfaces to userspace would be a more maintainable long-term > solution. >
Guess what? We *ALREADY* depend on these -- dev_t in libc6 is a 64-bit number.
-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/
| |