On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Todd Vierling wrote:

> The problem with the minor-split proposal you had was that it would require
> devices, once renumbered, to handle two different kinds of minor numbers. 

Um, what?  There are going to be `new' minor numbers and `old' minor
numbers regardless, right?

> That, on top of the extra work to shuffle the bits, is more than is really
> needed.

Are you sure that this `extra work' will be actually measurable, or are
you operating on the assumption that it will be?  A little bit of bit
manipulation is a lot less expensive than e.g. a direct -- or indirect --
function call.

--scott