Re: [RFC 2/4] firewire: dynamic cdev allocation below firewiremajor

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 13:02 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 08:32 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > I don't really like this.  There's no benefit to using the 1394 major
> > > number.  I'd rather see an improved alloc_chrdev_region() that does
> > > something like this but for the whole kernel (currently it "wastes" an
> > > entire major even if you only want 1 minor, and for what you're doing,
> > > grabbing 1 minor at a time makes the most sense.)
> > 
> > why bother? There's a LOT of majors nowadays (12 bits) so... what's the
> > problem with keeping the kernel side simple?
> > (it's not as if userspace needs to care about the exact numbers anyway
> > for almost everything)
> 
> Uh, ok. Seems pretty weird to effectively allocate 256 device numbers
> for just a single device, but ok :)

it's not 256 it's 2^20.... but still :) 
(eg there are 20 bits to a minor, 12 to a major)

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/