Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: FW: Parallel Tape vs. PacketTwin - pt name clash (fwd) | Date | Wed, 29 Jul 1998 19:17:53 +0100 | From | Philip Blundell <> |
| |
>Option 3 would be ok, except you are assuming that no one is >maintaining the PacketTwin driver, and no one has written >software that depends on the pt driver being the PacketTwin.
No software _can_ depend on that in any sane way, because its name is purely a kernel internal thing. Whereas the parallel-tape pt driver has nodes in /dev named after it that programs *must* use.
>Option 4 is not nice, ignoring a problem will only create larger >ones later. A person using SuSE decides they need PacketTwin >support, so they grab a kernel source tree and compile their own >and boom - instant problem.
Only if they decide to include support for both "pt" drivers as modules. Otherwise there is no problem.
>This raises the question - who is responsible for coordinating device >driver names and numbers for the kernel?
Names - basically nobody. Numbers - see devices.txt.
p.
- 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.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
| |