I think I understand this. Thanks for confirming what I thought I
understood.

With respect to the rest of the proposal.... Have you considered
eliminating the differences (internally) between CHAR and BLOCK?
A lot of systems do this when they go to a dynamic devsw. The only
thing you migh really need char/block for is in the externally
representation- and both Linux and FreeBSD quite easily prove you
can do fine without the distinction entirely.

-matt



On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, MAEKAWA Masahide wrote:

> Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> wrote:
> >But I see no advantage to dynamic devsw additions if you don't also
> >propagate this where user applications, opening well known device names
> >in /dev, get the device they expect. It seems that it deals with part
> >of the problem, but not the really important part.
>
> Of course, I understand my proposal is not atractive for userland.
> So I never mention userland (excluded config(8)).
>
> The dynamic devnode configuration framework like devfs is useful.
> Yes, it can be implemented without the dynamic devsw framework.
>
> But the dynamic configuration of kernel needs the dynamic devsw.
> The dynamic configuration of kernel needs 'configurable' kernel.
>
> My proposal is not for the userland but for the kernel.
>
> To miss the word 'for/in kernel' is my mistake...
>
> --- MAEKAWA Masahide
>