![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
tytso@mit.edu writes: > Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 14:56:12 +1000 > From: Richard Gooch <Richard.Gooch@atnf.CSIRO.AU> > > > Isn't the devfs supposed to allow major/minor-less devices? I seem to > > recall that for some devices major/minor number were used anywas since > > userland code used it (mounted filesystems e.g.). For ptys this should be > > no problem. > > Devfs does allows major/minor-less devices. You could hack the tty > driver to make use of this. Check out the devfs FAQ at: > http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rgooch/linux/devfs.txt > > This is actually a bad thing, since there's been a lot of talk about > using major/minor numbers as part of a tty locking scheme. Well, you don't actually *have* to get rid of major/minor numbers. Devfs also allows you to have automatic allocation of device numbers as well as supporting normal hard-wired major/minor numbers. In the devfs FAQ I propose automatic device number allocation for SCSI and tty devices. This would give us up to 64k SCSI partitions and tty devices without breaking userspace. BTW: what is this tty locking scheme? Regards, Richard.... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:42 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||