From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Czket-0004Fk-3C for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:57:12 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Czkej-00049Y-BR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:57:05 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Czkeg-00048N-Nh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:56:58 -0500 Received: from [128.8.10.163] (helo=po1.wam.umd.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CzkOj-00016s-4X for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:40:29 -0500 Received: from jbrown.mylinuxbox.org (jma-box.student.umd.edu [129.2.237.180]) by po1.wam.umd.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j1BNeSWa011645 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:40:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:40:27 -0500 From: "Jim C. Brown" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Major 254 Message-ID: <20050211234027.GA8846@jbrown.mylinuxbox.org> References: <1108163861.7659.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1108163861.7659.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org I am curious why qemu just doesn't set the device number to 0 (which would allow it to be assigned one by the kernel). Or was that feature removed when devfs was obsoleted? -- Infinite complexity begets infinite beauty. Infinite precision begets infinite perfection.