Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:12:00 -0800 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: Minors remaining in Major 10 ?? |
| |
Andre Hedrick wrote: > > On Sat, 20 Jan 2001, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > Andre Hedrick wrote: > > > > > > HPA, > > > > > > Thoughts on granting all block subsystems a general access misc-char minor > > > to do special service access that can not be down to a given device if it > > > is open. There are some things you can not do to a device if you are > > > using its device-point to gain entry. Also do the grab a neighboor and > > > force the migration to find the desired major/minor is painful. > > > > > > > Hmmm... this would be better done using a dedicated major (and then minor > > = block major.) This is something we can do in 2.5 once we have the > > larger dev_t; at this point, I'd be really hesitant to allocate > > additional that aren't obligatory. > > Er, I did not make the point clear enough, drat. > > mknod /dev/ide-service c 10 ??? > mknod /dev/scsi-service c 10 ??? > > These would be char devices that would allow one to pass a struct to an > ioctl to do device or host services that normally have to attempted by > opening the device desired. This fails if you are trying to unload the > driver (with KMOD enabled) so that you could switch devices or change > driver types. Yes this is the migration to a hotswap^H^H^H^H^H^H^H > general host/device services calls. >
No, I think I understood perfectly well. I said that if it's going to be bound to each block device subsystem it would make more sense to establish that tie explicitly -- if that isn't possible I'm a bit confused.
-hpa
-- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |