[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] 2.5.27 devfs
Richard Gooch wrote:
> Marcin Dalecki writes:
>>Kill two inlines which are notwhere used and which don't make sense
>>in the case someone is not compiling devfs at all.
> Rejected. Linus, please don't apply this bogus patch. External patches
> and drivers rely on the inline stubs so that #ifdef CONFIG_DEVFS_FS
> isn't needed.

Dare to actually *name* one of them?

> Martin, why are you bothering with this kind of false cleanup? These
> inline stubs don't take up any space in the object files, so why
> bother? Also, given that the stubs were carefully added in the first
> place, it suggests that there is a good reason for their presence.

They where not "carefully added".

The interface you are exposing is bogous.
Look in md.c for one example why.

Last time I counted you provide at least three different ways of object
allocations which play nasty games with major minor numbers in repeating
code in drivers all scattered over the kernel.
cd-roms are treated special md.c is doing. And you are doing the
whole object management in a side step instead of embarcing the
normal structures holding already device information so you get
of course memmory management problems...

> Why didn't you stop and think it through before firing off a patch, or
> at least ask me if you couldn't see why? This "patch first, think/ask
> questions later" approach is disturbing.

You didn't think doing devfs_fs_kernel.h. One simple sample from there:


If I look at md.c which is using it... well better don't tell.

And the above of of course inside ({ })...

Everybody would expect the following to be only a single function:

extern devfs_handle_t devfs_get_handle (devfs_handle_t dir, const char
extern devfs_handle_t devfs_find_handle (devfs_handle_t dir, const char

And it was of course too hard to unify ops and handle:

extern void *devfs_get_ops (devfs_handle_t de);
extern void devfs_put_ops (devfs_handle_t de);

You couldn't resist adding the redundant devfs_ prefix overall in the

extern devfs_register_chrdev (unsigned int major, const char *name,
struct file_operations *fops);
extern int devfs_register_blkdev (unsigned int major, const char *name,
struct block_device_operations *bdops);
extern int devfs_unregister_chrdev (unsigned int major, const char *name);
extern int devfs_unregister_blkdev (unsigned int major, const char *name);

Three different allocators and deallocators for one single subsystem,
preserving the illusion that there is in linux a real difference between
major and minor numbers...

extern int devfs_alloc_major (char type);
extern void devfs_dealloc_major (char type, int major);
extern kdev_t devfs_alloc_devnum (char type);
extern void devfs_dealloc_devnum (char type, kdev_t devnum);
extern int devfs_alloc_unique_number (struct unique_numspace *space);
extern void devfs_dealloc_unique_number (struct unique_numspace *space,
int number);

If flags are invalid -> add an invalid flag! instead of value return
through pointer.

static inline int devfs_get_flags (devfs_handle_t de, unsigned int *flags)
return 0;

And so on and so on.... Viro is simple right.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:27    [W:0.073 / U:2.280 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site