Messages in this thread |  | | From | Neil Brown <> | Date | Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:30:38 +1100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] remove DEVFS_FL_AUTO_DEVNUM |
| |
On March 2, hpa@zytor.com wrote: > Followup to: <20030301190724.B1900@lst.de> > By author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> > In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > > > Rationale: while dynamic major/minors are a good idea, devfs is the > > wrong layer to do it because all code relying on it would break with > > out devfs. > > > > Your first clause here is a *highly* questionable statement...
Given the premise "Linus will not allow new static major/minors", I think it is essential :-(
NeilBrown
> > -hpa > -- > <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! > "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." > Architectures needed: cris ia64 m68k mips64 ppc ppc64 s390 s390x sh v850 x86-64 > - > 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/ - 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/
|  |