Todd Vierling <tv@netbsd.org> writes:

> 
> On 15 Jan 1998, Charles M. Hannum wrote:
> 
> : This is, as I said before, a *stupid* reason to screw
> : over users.
> : 
> : Unless you come up with a better reason than that, I will do the split
> : format.
> 
> I integrated your suggestions on how to handle struct specinfo with zero
> trouble, and I did *not8 use the split minor format.  Pleas tell me how this
> screws over users?

Yes, you did so in a way that violates at least 1 standard (by adding
another mandatory argument to mknod(8) to get new-style device nodes).
Also, your proposal:

* makes ls(1) display bogus info for old-style device nodes, and

* makes the output of major() and minor() invalid for feeding back to
mknod(8), because it would pack them in the wrong format.

No, this isn't confusing at all.  Really.

> People -- everyone reading this thread -- please take note:
>     Yes, Virginia, I do have transparent 16 bit node compatibility.

About as transparent as a cataract.