Subject: Re: dev_t changes & partitions
To: Charles M. Hannum <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/16/1998 09:49:39
On 16 Jan 1998, Charles M. Hannum wrote:
> Bill Studenmund <email@example.com> writes:
> > But regardless of what we do, if the new mknod program gets passed a major
> > < 100 and no indication otherwise, it should assume it's being called by
> > an OLD script and act accordingly.
> So, this is exactly the sort of thing I was referring when I mentioned
> `wasting another part of the number space' and `another hack [to do
> the renumbering]'. With my proprosal, no such kluge is required.
I've thought about this since you've mentioned it a couple of times. And I
can't see how it's a problem.
With either scheme, we have 12 bits of major number. If we obsolete the
numbers we use now (0 to say 99), we loose those numbers in either scheme.
How is that "wasting another part of the number space?" We had 4096
majors, and now we have 3996. ??