Re: [PATCH] new system call mknod64

Jörn Engel
2003-04-21T19:05:23Z

On Mon, 21 April 2003 19:54:24 +0100, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 11:35:31AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > Since they are always in canonical format, there is no way for them to
> > have the aliasing issue. However, even then they _should_ be careful,
> > since it would be very confusing (and bad) if they consider
> >
> > 0x00010100 (major 1, minor 256)
> >
> > to be fundamentally different from
> >
> > 0x01ff (major 1, minor 255)
> >
> > and cause problems that way.
> >
> > In other words, if I'm a device driver, and I say that I want "range
> > 0-0xfff" for "major 2", then I had better get _all_ of it.
>
> Sure. However, note that right now there is only one driver that
> wants a range bigger than 256 (and has to split it). UNIX 98 ptys.

Once this whole matter has settled down a little, mtdchar might want
more than 256 as well. The good news though, is that the old range
should stay unchanged for compatibility and the more-than-256 range
can remain unsplit.

Jörn

--
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability.
-- Edsger W. Dijkstra