lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectDynamic major/minor numbers (or dropping them completely)
*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(r) Pro*
Currently, the kernel has the following properties:
1) initramfs can be used to boot the system. We don't need any
predefined /dev entries.
2) udev can be started from the initramfs to create the required entries
in /dev. udev doesn't care about major/minor numbers.
3) Most distros already use udev and maybe initramfs. If there are
exceptions, they can be easily converted.

For the first part, I'm asking: is there any reason why new char/block
drivers shouldn't use dynamic major/minor numbers? Is there any reason
against converting the whole kernel to dynamic major/minor numbers?

Okay, maybe the previous questions looked useless from a pragmatic POV.
But why shouldn't the whole major/minor numbering system be dropped
completely? sysfs already maintains a hierachy of device drivers and
kernel subsystems, one which is better than the major/minor system. The
current system could be replaced by a single-numbered,
dynamically-allocated scheme.

Device files could be stored on a tmpfs filesystem, so that we don't
make any changes to current filesystems. Apps won't need to be modified,
since they access /dev entries by name, provided udev maintains the
current naming scheme.

Any thoughts on this?
-
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: 2007-08-02 19:47    [W:0.072 / U:0.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site