Message-ID: <46B21833.600@aladin.ro>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:45:23 +0300
From: Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu <maxdamage@aladin.ro>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070326)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Dynamic major/minor numbers (or dropping them completely)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1542
Lines: 31

*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/