Re: 64-bit kdev_t - just for playing

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Followup to:  <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304031548090.12110-100000@serv>
By author:    Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> 
> Yes, I know this mantra now and that's not the problem (or will be fixed 
> shortly).
> This still doesn't answer what will come next. You must have _some_ idea, 
> otherwise you wouldn't add a new interface, remove other infrastructure 
> and provide a patch which modifies MKDEV & co. All of this only leads us 
> away from the goal of dynamic device numbers. Why?
> 

I have an idea, why don't you read the archives of this mailing list
for the past eight years and learn, once again, why dynamic numbers
are broken for nearly all applications (disks and ptys being, perhaps,
the few case where they actually work.)

This has been hashed and rehashed on this list so many times it's not
even funny.

	-hpa
-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
Architectures needed: ia64 m68k mips64 ppc ppc64 s390 s390x sh v850 x86-64