Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 23:07:52 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
To: Chris Snook <csnook@redhat.com>
Cc: Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu <maxdamage@aladin.ro>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Dynamic major/minor numbers (or dropping them completely)
Message-ID: <20070803220752.GU21089@ftp.linux.org.uk>
References: <46B21833.600@aladin.ro> <46B39A8F.5070809@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <46B39A8F.5070809@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1111
Lines: 20

On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 05:13:51PM -0400, Chris Snook wrote:
> You're correct that dynamic major/minor numbers are sufficient for most 
> purposes, but embedded users really need their static numbers.  As for 
> ripping out major/minor numberings, that's a non-starter.  Too much of our 
> device management infrastructure is based around this numbering scheme, and 
> there isn't really anything wrong with it to justify breaking everything in 
> the change.
> 
> As a rule of thumb, if you ever find yourself wondering why we still 
> support doing statically something we can now do dynamically, the answer is 
> generally that doing it dynamically sucks for embedded.

And not only embedded.  I'm quite happy _not_ running udev on anything
I have root on, except for one test box set exactly to make sure that
patches do not break things for udev-infested boxen.
-
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/