From: Chris Snook <csnook@redhat.com>
To: Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu <maxdamage@aladin.ro>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Dynamic major/minor numbers (or dropping them completely)
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:13:51 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <46B39A8F.5070809@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <46B21833.600@aladin.ro>
Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu wrote:
> *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(r) Pro*
> Currently, the kernel has the following properties:
> 1) initramfs can be used to boot the system. We don't need any
> predefined /dev entries.
> 2) udev can be started from the initramfs to create the required entries
> in /dev. udev doesn't care about major/minor numbers.
> 3) Most distros already use udev and maybe initramfs. If there are
> exceptions, they can be easily converted.
>
> For the first part, I'm asking: is there any reason why new char/block
> drivers shouldn't use dynamic major/minor numbers? Is there any reason
> against converting the whole kernel to dynamic major/minor numbers?
>
> Okay, maybe the previous questions looked useless from a pragmatic POV.
> But why shouldn't the whole major/minor numbering system be dropped
> completely? sysfs already maintains a hierachy of device drivers and
> kernel subsystems, one which is better than the major/minor system. The
> current system could be replaced by a single-numbered,
> dynamically-allocated scheme.
>
> Device files could be stored on a tmpfs filesystem, so that we don't
> make any changes to current filesystems. Apps won't need to be modified,
> since they access /dev entries by name, provided udev maintains the
> current naming scheme.
>
> Any thoughts on this?
You're correct that dynamic major/minor numbers are sufficient for most
purposes, but embedded users really need their static numbers. As for ripping
out major/minor numberings, that's a non-starter. Too much of our device
management infrastructure is based around this numbering scheme, and there isn't
really anything wrong with it to justify breaking everything in the change.
As a rule of thumb, if you ever find yourself wondering why we still support
doing statically something we can now do dynamically, the answer is generally
that doing it dynamically sucks for embedded.
-- Chris
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-08-03 21:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-08-02 17:45 Dynamic major/minor numbers (or dropping them completely) Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu
2007-08-03 21:13 ` Chris Snook [this message]
2007-08-03 22:07 ` Al Viro
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=46B39A8F.5070809@redhat.com \
--to=csnook@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maxdamage@aladin.ro \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox