lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Apr]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:22    [W:0.045 / U:2.940 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site