Larger dev_t
Quoted 1 line · Ingo Oeser
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.
Wayne
Quoted 7 lines · On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 1 line · Ingo Oeser
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.
Signature · 1 line
WebSig: http://www.jukie.net/~bart/sig/