[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46B21833.600@aladin.ro>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:45:23 +0300
From: Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu <maxdamage@...din.ro>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Dynamic major/minor numbers (or dropping them completely)
*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(r) Pro*
Currently, the kernel has the following properties:
1) initramfs can be used to boot the system. We don't need any
predefined /dev entries.
2) udev can be started from the initramfs to create the required entries
in /dev. udev doesn't care about major/minor numbers.
3) Most distros already use udev and maybe initramfs. If there are
exceptions, they can be easily converted.
For the first part, I'm asking: is there any reason why new char/block
drivers shouldn't use dynamic major/minor numbers? Is there any reason
against converting the whole kernel to dynamic major/minor numbers?
Okay, maybe the previous questions looked useless from a pragmatic POV.
But why shouldn't the whole major/minor numbering system be dropped
completely? sysfs already maintains a hierachy of device drivers and
kernel subsystems, one which is better than the major/minor system. The
current system could be replaced by a single-numbered,
dynamically-allocated scheme.
Device files could be stored on a tmpfs filesystem, so that we don't
make any changes to current filesystems. Apps won't need to be modified,
since they access /dev entries by name, provided udev maintains the
current naming scheme.
Any thoughts on this?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists