Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 20:27:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 20:27:13 -0500 Received: from hera.cwi.nl ([192.16.191.8]:57788 "EHLO hera.cwi.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 20:27:13 -0500 From: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 02:33:45 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: To: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl, viro@math.psu.edu Subject: Re: kill i_dev Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@transmeta.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1003 Lines: 26 > We can kill i_dev. > BTW, watch out for socket.c use of ->i_dev. Yes, I looked at that but concluded that someone (you?) had added the assignment just to preserve the guarantee previously given by get_empty_inode() at the moment it was replaced by new_inode(). But it is superfluous, I think. > However, rdev and [cb]dev will have to remain separate. We can fight later on that one. My point of view is that just like i_dev is a field in i_sb, also i_rdev can be retrieved from i_[cb]dev. Something else is kdev_t. I liked it when it was a pointer. Now it is just garbage and the kernel is full of conversions to and from. Is there any reason not to throw out all of kdev_t? That is, is there a reason to have a kdev_t different from dev_t? 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/