Subject: Re: Call for review: The New Block/Character Device Switch Configuration
To: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
From: Matthew Jacob <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/28/2001 09:09:59
I wasn't missing this- this is fine insofar as it goes. You can use the
kernel as it moves the place where one defines this platform's
char/block major+minor set from a conf.c to a config file.
I don't have an objection to what is being proposed. I wanted to
understand if the proposers were clear that the last steps were
missing. This is possibly a step in the right direction.
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 12:50:09 +0200
> From: Ignatios Souvatzis <email@example.com>
> Message-ID: <20010628125009.A28656@theory.cs.uni-bonn.de>
> | Well, but as long as the userland problem isn't solved, you can't use your
> | changed kernel at all...
> I think that you and mjacob were both missing ...
> 4.2. Userland - config(8)
> 4.2.1. Grammer
> device-switch <name> chr <num> [blk <num>] [<options>]
> name - The prefix of bdevsw/cdevsw entry (required)
> chr - A character major number (required)
> blk - A block major number (optional)
> options - Conditions to determine whether should be attached or not
> That is, the major device numbers are still being wired into the
> kernel, they're not being dynamically allocated - just now that info
> is coming from the config machinery, rather that someone hand editing
> the conf.c file and corectly positioning the list of functions in the
> [cb]devsw tables.
> Really, if Matt Thomas looks at this and says "real cool" or something,
> it really can't be a totally broken design, can it?
As much as I respect Matt, the answer to that last is "can't tell". I
don't know if Matt Thomas has ever worked on the issues inside kernels
that come from this topic. I have.