From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: virtio-serial: An interface for =?iso-8859-1?q?host-guest=09communication?= Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 08:39:28 +0930 Message-ID: <200908110839.28901.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> References: <20090805175713.GB28738@shareable.org> <20090810065508.GA4499@amit-x200.redhat.com> <4A7FECCA.8080804@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Amit Shah , Anthony Liguori , kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Richard W.M. Jones" , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Gerd Hoffmann Return-path: Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:46325 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754148AbZHJXJb (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:09:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4A7FECCA.8080804@redhat.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 07:17:54 pm Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > On 08/10/09 08:55, Amit Shah wrote: > >> Bad example. Quite a lot of modern devices drivers are using dynamic > >> major/minor numbers because they have proven to be such a pain in the > >> butt. That's why we have more sophisticated mechanisms like udev for > >> userspace to make use of. > > > > Let me explain how we came to this numbering: we first had support for > > 'naming' ports and the names were obtained by userspace programs by an > > ioctl. Rusty suggested to use some numbering scheme where some ports > > could exist at predefined locations so that we wouldn't need the naming > > and the ioctls around it. > > I think the naming is very important. I disagree. If you can hand out names, you can hand out numbers. Whether the guest chooses to put that number in sysfs or make it a minor, I don't care. Rusty.