[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 21:46:01 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] char/tty_io: fix legacy pty name when more than 256
pty devices are requested
On 09/08/2009 07:54 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>
>> IMO, no less weird than a random shift from one naming algorithm to
>> another in the middle of the sequence.
>
> Ok, your algorithm will be fully compatible with the old naming system, as
> you're encoding the nibbles on this order:
> [7:4][3:0][*:8]
>
Actually it's [7:4][*:8][3:0]. It was the easiest way to get backwards
compatibility, since it allowed for the use of s[n]printf(). It's not
by any means the only possibility, but I think the easiest one to describe.
> From one side, I liked the idea of not having any arbitrary maximum limit, but
> from other side, It seems easier to implement than to describe it in English,
> at devices.txt. Maybe the solution is to explain it by examples.
>
> Also, if we look at the current device designation, we already have some rule
> changes.
That doesn't mean it's a good idea.
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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