Subject: Re: 32 bit dev_t, Revision 2
To: Todd Vierling <tv@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Perry E. Metzger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/11/1998 18:04:00
Todd Vierling writes:
> On Mon, 12 Jan 1998, Darren Reed wrote:
> : I assume for %10 and %11 there will need to be a registry kept, no ?
> Yes, there would be a registry. We already have one, for our current device
> setup, but it is completely port-dependent.
I think the %10 and %11 thing must go. There is no point to the
frequency coded notation. This is NOT an IP address. There is no point
to dividing it that way. Any arbitrary split will be fine, and
allocating the first 2k to dynamic devices when no real machine has
more than 20 or 30 devices at most is not reasonable.
> My idea in thinking this was that for now, all devices could have static
> numbers, but sometime in the (near?) future, devices would become dropped
> into the dynamic pool even if compiled directly into the kernel (devfs
Well, that isn't in the current projects list... and even if it were,
real machines don't have 2000 devices on the bus.