Subject: Re: Cloning bdev/cdev devices, step one
To: Bill Studenmund <>
From: Jason R Thorpe <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 07/11/2000 17:36:16
On Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 01:33:26PM -0700, Bill Studenmund wrote:

 > > this sounds like a fine thing to me.  making devices less tied to
 > > dev_t internally in the kernel is a good thing, since dev_t is really
 > > just a kludgy way of representing a device in a filesystem.
 > Uhm, how is it kludgy? Hasn't it been that all unix has needed to
 > represent/specify a device has been is the dev_t? I mean, hasn't it been
 > that that's been the canonical specifier? :-) If dev_t is the canonical
 > specifier, how is using dev_t in the kernle a kludge? :-)

Not necessarily... in e.g. a devfs type file system, the vnode itself
*is* the representation of the device in the file system.

 > Note: if we do put the cookie in the vnode, I think it should go in struct
 > specinfo, and get a v_devcookie define too. Mainly because it helps memory

Yes, I put it in specinfo, not in the vnode proper itself.

        -- Jason R. Thorpe <>