Subject: Re: [README] MI device major assignment
To: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@NetBSD.org>
From: Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org>
List: tech-kern
Date: 10/10/2003 10:27:03
--L6iaP+gRLNZHKoI4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 05:52:09PM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> On Monday, 6 October 2003 at 8:18:09 +1000, Luke Mewburn wrote:
> > 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?
>=20
> 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?
Unfortunately we haven't reached concensus yet. :-(
I like Luke's less-prefered choice of having local ones 144-159 and=20
having MI ones from 160 on up. Mainly as we will keep adding devices over=
=20
time, and eventually we will get past 256. This division leaves it:
< 140 Old-style
140 - 159 Local/distribution specific
160 + New-style.
Take care,
Bill
--L6iaP+gRLNZHKoI4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)
iD8DBQE/huvnWz+3JHUci9cRAgcZAKCYVk0VixpngY+Cdh5Qv3ijoBMcXgCfdsPm
8RAKRs4PlnbEHiqH4qWjBbs=
=MEWs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--L6iaP+gRLNZHKoI4--