Subject: Re: 32 bit dev_t
To: Charles M. Hannum <>
From: Chris G. Demetriou <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 01/15/1998 10:37:37
[ I've been busy with other things the last few days. ]

>> 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?

I, for one, would rather take the support hassle once or twice --
i.e. when the switch is made in -current and when the next release is
done (and the latter shouldn't be a hassle, if the upgrade process is
any good) -- than be saddled with a bad-looking device number format
for years to come.

I'd also rather renumber major and minor devices now, and merge all
the tables now, than get stuck with them for N more years, and/or be
put in the position where they can't ever be fixed (until the next
Major Change to dev_t's).