Subject: Re: 32 bit dev_t
To: Todd Vierling <tv@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Charles M. Hannum <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/13/1998 17:14:29
Todd Vierling <tv@NetBSD.ORG> writes:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Charles M. Hannum wrote:
> : There's a potentially nasty `stupid user' issue lurking here. If you
> : simply follow Chris's proposal and do a straight 12/20 split, using
> : major number 0 to flag old-style nodes, then an old MAKEDEV(8) with a
> : new mknod(8) or a new MAKEDEV(8) with an old mknod(8) will create
> : bogus device numbers. This is going to bite people -- maybe even
> : inadvertantly opening security holes.
> Well, during development (I'd think switching dev_t's would warrant a letter
> bump from `B' to `C' perhaps? :) we can expect things to bite. However, it
> should be adequate to require those tracking -current to update /dev/MAKEDEV
> and mknod(8) at the same time--for those going release to release, that will
> happen automatically as both are in the base binary set.
`Yeah, right.' Past experience shows that any time you expect users
to do two things at once, some of them are going to forget, not read
the directions at all, or just plain screw it up. Why have the
support hassle when you don't need it?