Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 3 Apr 2001 11:34:11 -0400 (EDT) | From | Bart Trojanowski <> | Subject | Re: Larger dev_t |
| |
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/
| |