From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267760AbUIAWhU (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Sep 2004 18:37:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267443AbUIAWfL (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Sep 2004 18:35:11 -0400 Received: from the-village.bc.nu ([81.2.110.252]:28556 "EHLO localhost.localdomain") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267520AbUIAWaV (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Sep 2004 18:30:21 -0400 Subject: Re: MMC block major dev From: Alan Cox To: Russell King Cc: Pierre Ossman , Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <20040901225503.A26520@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <4134CDF0.7070600@drzeus.cx> <20040831201556.B11053@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <4134D5EF.9080903@drzeus.cx> <1094040990.2399.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20040901225503.A26520@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1094074082.3100.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 22:28:04 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mer, 2004-09-01 at 22:55, Russell King wrote: > Surely the same arguments also apply to character drivers as well? Beats me but I had this argument before 1.0 was out and lost. > >From what you're saying, any use of these dynamic majors what so > ever is buggy. So WTF do we have this facility in the kernel in > the first place? It makes sense if you have something truely managing your device space like devfs or udev. > I suggest that someone submits a patch to rip out this apparantly > buggy and useless feature, or at least make the kernel print a > warning when its used such that people are aware of its dangerous > nature. Once everyone is using udev its useful. It also works out for devices you never "give" to a user. The problem with MMC slots is they are the kind of thing you want to hand out to a user on the console of a machine in many situations. > Of course, if you do rip out dynamic majors then you _will_ need > to have an assigned major number for PCMCIA driver services, and > probably a bunch of other stuff. PCMCIA is very careful to create and remove its nodes and make sure they don't ever become non root only. > I also seem to remember hearing that we will only be using dynamically > assigned device numbers in the new expanded device space. If and when everyone has udev happy then yes - although LANANA is still needed for name assignment between vendors. That or we give it to the LSB, and personally I'd rather LANANA did it 8) Alan