Re: [linux-usb] Re: USB device allocation

Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Fri, 8 Oct 1999 23:20:13 +0100 (BST)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Stephen Frost: "Re: PUBLIC CHALLENGE: (was RE: devfs again, (was RE: USB device a"
Previous message: Horst von Brand: "Re: PUBLIC CHALLENGE: (was RE: devfs again, (was RE: USB device alloc ation) )"

> > RJ> The Unix-like kernel knows only major/minor device numbers, not names.
> > Which POSIX standard says how unix-like kernel acts inside ???
>
> I'm beginning to wonder why we're still fumbling around with the
> major/minor concept. Is there any compelling reason for it other than
> "thats the way we've always done it since 1970's, and 640k is enough ram
> for anyone"?

You need a permanent on disk device key for the system. That basically means
either a name or number in the inode. A number is obviously somewhat easier.

major/minor is a very clean and neat idea - we might want 32bits of it sure

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

Next message: Stephen Frost: "Re: PUBLIC CHALLENGE: (was RE: devfs again, (was RE: USB device a"
Previous message: Horst von Brand: "Re: PUBLIC CHALLENGE: (was RE: devfs again, (was RE: USB device alloc ation) )"