Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 11:37:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 11:37:27 -0400 Received: from cr502987-a.rchrd1.on.wave.home.com ([24.42.47.5]:21510 "EHLO the.jukie.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 11:37:19 -0400 Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 11:34:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Trojanowski To: cc: Ingo Oeser , , , , , , Subject: Re: Larger dev_t In-Reply-To: <86256A23.00517DBD.00@smtpnotes.altec.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Wayne.Brown@altec.com wrote: > Ingo Oeser wrote: > > >Yes: Let "mknod /dev/foo [bc] x y" die! > > I hope this never happens. Improving the major/minor device scheme is > reasonable; abandoning it would be a sad occurrence. It would make Linux too > "un-UNIXish" (how's THAT for an an ugly neologism!) for my tastes. I don't know... the command 'mknod' should probably remain for compatibility reasons. But the way that it does create the node can be completely different. For example the call could just be a wrapper to a syscall or a write to a proc file. I think Ingo had qualms with the process of creating of a device file which is totally detached of the kernel's ability to service that device. But I am with you. The compatibility between *NIX should not be severed so fast. B. -- WebSig: http://www.jukie.net/~bart/sig/ - 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/