--BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Monday,  6 October 2003 at  8:18:09 +1000, Luke Mewburn wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 07:16:12PM +0200, Jaromir Dolecek wrote:
>> Robert Elz wrote:
>>> So, unless we have some evidence that vendors are about to start issuing
>>> major numbers in the 140-191 block, that NetBSD wants to be compatible with,
>>> I think I'd do
>>>
>>> 	144-191		Distribution (NetBSD Vendor) and local use majors
>>> 	192...		MI numbers for new NetBSD drivers.
>>
>> This sounds fine to me. What do others thing? If there
>> would not be any objections to this, I'll update the comments
>> in MD majors.* and src/sys/dev/majors accordingly on Tuesday/Wednesday.
>
> Whilst I know the benefit in providing namespace for "local" devices,
> if we're trying to restrict ourselves to 0..255, why not ensure that
> NetBSD has more of that namespace.
>
> E.g:
> 	144-159		local-use (including vendor)
> 	160-255		NetBSD MI
>
> or even (my preferred):
> 	144-239		NetBSD MI (allocate from lowest first)
> 	240-255		Local/vendor (allocate top down)
>
> The latter means that if we find a compelling reason (i.e, local users
> or vendors beg for more than 16 "private-use" majors :), we can revise
> the namespace in the future without too many problems?

OK, this seems to be the last message on the subject.  I'm currently
in the position of wanting to allocate an MI major number to Vinum.
Which one do I choose?  144?  160?  192?  240?  256?

Greg
--
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.

--BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE/hmwxIubykFB6QiMRAqrEAKCFlsgw4FZMKjqUsuVO+cO78Ati7gCeLOmJ
bROOYJXklWokcqCbLqW1lGo=
=GcaL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl--