Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org> wrote:
>> But to construct MAKEDEV from majors list, as Darren points out, is
>> easier than it. It is not trivial, too.
>>
>> O.K. I will consider about this.
>
>Is that a "I will consider this" about MAKEDEV, or about devfs?

Ah, I would say "Next, I will consider about MAKEDEV".
Before it, I must learn English....

>That'd be cool as it would
>further reduce the number of places we have to keep major numbers (and the
>number of places we can get them out of sync).
>
>If it's about devfs, please don't let devfs slow down the other work
>you're doing. The devsw cleanup you're doing will make lkms much better,
>and cure problems we've had in other places (like devices being left out
>of the char<->block conversion). devfs will take a while, as the big thing
>we need is a way to permanently identify a device (thus to make sure the
>permissions you assign to the device one day come back to it even if it
>has a different major or minor number).

Yes. I agree.

But, anyway, it's DEFINITELY IMPOSSIBLE to implement them SOON.

I know that many of you want auto-generation of MAKEDEV, the mechanism like
device filesystem and so on. But, I say again,

"The current NetBSD lacks some mechanisms to do it."

Certainly the patch kit of my proposal contains the auto-generaion of
device switches only, though it's one of the lack and it's very big even now.

Even if ok'ed to merge my patch kit, it's not so easy...

--- MAEKAWA Masahide
--- Key fingerprint = BC5E D8CB 816C 2CB5 8560  FDE3 6CB8 BF5D 8D50 F2EE