Subject: Re: Port independent cdevsw
To: Lennart Augustsson <email@example.com>
From: Manuel Bouyer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/15/2000 23:50:07
On Sun, Oct 15, 2000 at 06:03:33PM +0200, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
> I know this has been discussed before, but I'd like to bring it up again.
> Why do we have a cdevsw and bdevsw for each port? Purely historical
> reasons I'd say. It's a real nuisance. Whenever you add a MI device
It's also usefull to use a 'native' file system. For example, you can boot
a NetBSD kernel on a SunOS disk and it'll just work, because of COMPAT_SUNOS
and because enouth devices nodes are the same.
> driver you have to change far to many places. You need to update the
> conf.c file for all ports that can have the device, and then the MAKEDEV
> for the corresponding ports. This is annoying and error prone.
> I suggest that we switch over to having a mostly port independent [bc]devsw
> tables. There is still a need to have port specific drivers so I suggest the
> following design:
> Set aside a part of the major device numbers for port specific driver,
> say 0-255. The table for this will be port specific.
> The rest of the major numbers are port independent and stored in a
> central table.
> This design would allow us to slowly move over to MI drivers since the
> old tables will still work. To keep backwards compatibility we can
> just keep duplicate entries in the port specific tables and the new one.
This would also take care of the compat issue I raised above :)
Manuel Bouyer <email@example.com>