From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:57:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:57:50 -0500 Received: from 12-231-249-244.client.attbi.com ([12.231.249.244]:20744 "HELO kroah.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:57:49 -0500 Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:56:42 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] dev_t [2/3] Message-ID: <20030318235642.GF10089@kroah.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 11:02:21PM +0100, Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote: > In order not to have to change all drivers, I did > > +int register_chrdev(unsigned int major, const char *name, > + struct file_operations *fops) > +{ > + return register_chrdev_region(major, 0, 256, name, fops); > +} > > so that the old register_chrdev registers a single major > and 256 minors. Later this can be changed (but see my letter > to Al last week). This is nice, thanks. We don't have to touch the char drivers now. Ah, I wish we could change that function to be: int register_chrdev_region(major, num_minors, name, fops) if it wasn't for the tty drivers wanting to start their minor at 64. Hm, wait, why can't we just do it that way and not change the tty core to use the register_chrdev_region() call? It should still all work properly, right? The tty core would ask for 256 minors, and split them off the same way it currently does. thanks, greg k-h