On 15 Jan 1998, Charles M. Hannum 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. 
: 
: Excuse me?  It would require a conversion step for at least every
: major number that has its minor number format changes -- just like the
: plan you're talking about.  In this respect, there's no difference.

Why?  I'm using 16 bit nodes with compatibility translation.  I'm writing
this message using that kernel.

Only devices which do not already have named nodes would need new 32 bit
nodes.  /dev/sd2d will still function as /dev/sd2d as long as the
compatibility is there.  That's the point of the compatibility code.

: > - 16 bit dev_t's converted to 32 bit only when:
: >   - storing in specinfo struct
: >   - comparing in vfs_subr.c
: >   - looking up hash values in SPECHASH()
: 
: You only have to do this once, before the device number is used
: anywhere in checkalias().  The rest of these things all use the same
: value.

Okay, I'll look into it.

=====
===== Todd Vierling (Personal tv@pobox.com) =====
== "There's a myth that there is a scarcity of justice to go around, so
== that if we extend justice to 'those people,' it will somehow erode the
== quality of justice everyone else receives."  -- Maria Price