Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:32:19 +0100 | From | Andries Brouwer <> | Subject | Re: Fwd: struct inode size reduction. |
| |
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 05:25:49PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Andries Brouwer wrote: > > > > > - error = register_chrdev(driver->major, driver->name, &tty_fops); > > > > + error = register_chrdev_region(driver->major, driver->minor_start, > > > > + driver->num, driver->name, &tty_fops); > > > > > > Are that much parameters really needed? > > > > Yes. > > Why? Problems are hardly solved by adding more parameters. > If going to a larger number space means, that we have to add crappy > interfaces, we should rather keep it as it is. > Why do you need to partition the number space like this? I looked at the > users in the last mail for a reason. If we're going to change the > interface, it should reflect what we will need in the future.
Maybe I should not react, but let me answer once more. You do not understand the part about "small steps".
You see a future and ask why I don't jump to the future you see. The answer is that I take small steps.
Look at the current junk in char_dev.c and cry: if (ret && isa_tty_dev(major)) { lock_kernel(); if (need_serial(major,minor)) { /* Force request_module anyway, but what for? */ fops_put(ret); ret = NULL; } unlock_kernel(); } Then be happy that it is gone.
You want a different interface? My changes make it easier for you to get there. Please go ahead.
Andries
- 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/
| |