On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 02:01:52AM +0200, Lubomir Sedlacik wrote: > On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 02:05:38PM -0700, Bill Stouder-Studenmund wrote: > > > > For now, the idea's to stick with current numbers. Adding a device > > switch table as part of the request for a new major number, however, > > makes sense. > > > > From the point of view of the devfs code, major numbers are just > > things that are there. The code will work w/ static majors or with > > dynamic majors. I think we'll need this code (devfs) to really make > > dynamic majors work, but they are otherwise unrelated. > > While there, think how to avoid the issue with Solaris and name_to_major > in cluster environment sooner than we actually get cluster support. :) > > If you don't know what I am talking about, try: > http://www.google.com/search?q=solaris?ame_to_major?luster Something got lost in translation above. As best I can tell, the above's a consequence of how Solaris implemented its dynamic device configuration. I could be wrong, but I think what we have in mind is significantly different, so that this issue doesn't really apply. Take care, Bill
Attachment:
pgpmZ_aOteWlg.pgp
Description: PGP signature