[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090910011320.3a6ec797@caramujo.chehab.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 01:13:20 -0300
From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
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
Em Tue, 08 Sep 2009 21:46:01 -0700
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> escreveu:
> 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.
True. Given the idea of using an unique algorithm to populate the namespace, I agree
that your proposal is a good alternative.
I just sent the patch with the feedbacks I had. I tried to do my best to describe it in
simple yet precise terms at devices.txt.
Thanks,
Mauro
--
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