Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 11:19:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@ref.tfs.com> To: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Cc: peter@bonkers.taronga.com, julian@freefall.cdrom.com, fs@freefall.cdrom.com, hackers@freefall.cdrom.com, hardware@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: [DEVFS] your opinions sought! Message-ID: <199504191819.LAA09420@ref.tfs.com> In-Reply-To: <9504191754.AA19153@cs.weber.edu> from "Terry Lambert" at Apr 19, 95 11:54:59 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I don't see any reason in devfs to make these symlinks, since it's all
> > virtual anyway... just have them both have the same major/minor.
Part of the devfs conspiracys agenda is to abolish major/minors.
They are a nuisance, a kludge, when you think about it.
I expect (but this is not final) that a dev_t will become a pointer
to a struct.
Then the device-driver gets two fields to play with, to take the
job of major/minors:
struct devfs_entry {
void * private_p;
u_long private_l;
...
};
typedef struct devfs_entry *dev_t;
This means that we can get rid of the "struct foobar[NFOOBAR];" constructs
in all the drivers...
--
Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@login.dknet.dk> -- TRW Financial Systems, Inc.
'All relevant people are pertinent' && 'All rude people are impertinent'
=> 'no rude people are relevant'
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504191819.LAA09420>