From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Czm4W-0005eM-DV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:27:44 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Czm4R-0005ao-Um
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:27:40 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Czm4R-0005XI-OJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:27:39 -0500
Received: from [128.8.10.163] (helo=po1.wam.umd.edu)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CzljW-0005na-Od
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:06:02 -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 j1C161lr002964
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:06:02 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:06:01 -0500
From: "Jim C. Brown" <jma5@umd.edu>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Major 254
Message-ID: <20050212010601.GA9614@jbrown.mylinuxbox.org>
References: <1108163861.7659.9.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<20050211234027.GA8846@jbrown.mylinuxbox.org>
	<1108169010.7659.12.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1108169010.7659.12.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 01:43:29PM +1300, Darryl Dixon wrote:
> Good question, I didn't even know that was possible; but if the major
> number was auto-assigned, how would the correct device node be created
> for it at install time?
> 
> D
> 
> 

This feature was added when devfs was added - devfs would create the node
(with the right major&minor number) automatically. I assume udev has something
similar.

As a worst case option, the module can simply report which number it got in
dmesg, and then one can create the node by hand.

-- 
Infinite complexity begets infinite beauty.
Infinite precision begets infinite perfection.