Subject: Re: 32 bit dev_t, Revision 3
To: Chris G. Demetriou <email@example.com>
From: Todd Vierling <tv@NetBSD.ORG>
Date: 01/13/1998 14:39:44
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Chris G. Demetriou wrote:
: Even if we use 1000 device entries -- which i doubt -- your 99% number
: is nonsical unless we had 100 ports, and still wouldn't work out
: because of shared devices.
: It's not clear to me that that's 'fat', and it certainly wouldn't be
: 'slow'. (You said that if we wanted "fast-and-lean.")
Well, the fast part was the non-splitting of MI/MD devices.
: Rather than fast and lean, i'd like fast, lean, and easy to maintain.
When I actually start writing the conf.c, I'll start it as a Grand Unified
table, and we'll see how it progresses from there. But I'm still wondering
about the need for 16 bit backward compatibility.... (as of right now, I'm
not physically writing 16 bit backward compatibility into my test code.)
===== Todd Vierling (Personal firstname.lastname@example.org) =====
== "There's a myth that there is a scarcity of justice to go around, so
== that if we extend justice to 'those people,' it will somehow erode the
== quality of justice everyone else receives." -- Maria Price