Subject: Re: Cloning bdev/cdev devices, step one
To: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
From: Jason R Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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 <email@example.com>