[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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)) {
if (need_serial(major,minor)) {
/* Force request_module anyway, but what for? */
ret = NULL;
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.


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 13:33    [W:0.090 / U:1.352 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site