Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 Apr 2003 23:11:51 +0200 (CEST) | From | Roman Zippel <> | Subject | Re: 64-bit kdev_t - just for playing |
| |
Hi,
On Wed, 9 Apr 2003 Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote:
> Your questions are about the meaning of this number, > that is, about the third part. What I am doing is only > removing certain restrictions on the size of the number.
If your patches would just removes these restriction, I wouldn't mind at all, but your patches do more than that. Why?
> Your letters carry the tone of "it is forbidden to work on the > old scheme before you have shown how to solve all device naming > problems". But I am not going to. > > You have opinions and questions about future schemes. > And so do I. But since time is limited I wrote you > already a handful of times: "Later". > > This number stuff is simple and straightforward, we know precisely > what has to be done, but of course it needs to be done.
I don't want to forbid you anything, I want that you explain what you do, as your patches do more than simply enlarging dev_t. You still avoid any clear answer about this.
> Naming on the other hand is intricate, lots of complications. > Device naming - but what is a device? Already that is complicated. > These are good discussions, and maybe sysfs will provide the answer > in certain cases, but these discussions are independent of dev_t.
They are not independent. You want to have a larger dev_t so it can be used for 2.6, but this also requires an answer to the question "How will it be used during 2.6?".
bye, Roman
- 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/
| |