Subject: Re: 32 bit dev_t
To: Todd Vierling <tv@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Charles M. Hannum <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/15/1998 19:00:44
Todd Vierling <email@example.com> 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.