Subject: Re: dev_t changes & partitions
To: Todd Vierling <tv@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Charles M. Hannum <mycroft@MIT.EDU>
Date: 01/15/1998 22:02:23
Todd Vierling <tv@NetBSD.ORG> writes:
> 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.
I'm talking about inside the kernel. That should be bloody obvious,
given the context of everything else. *sigh*