From: Richard Gooch <rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca>
To: "Carsten Otte" <COTTE@de.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] linux-2.417 devfs 64bit portablility issue
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 10:56:46 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200202181756.g1IHukh32273@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OF88983DCC.7DF28A38-ONC1256B64.0036063F@de.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <OF88983DCC.7DF28A38-ONC1256B64.0036063F@de.ibm.com>
Carsten Otte writes:
>
> Hi Richard!
>
> >BTW: please don't send attachments. Send patches inline instead.
> Sorry for sending the patch as attachment, but Notes messes
> up whitespace so the patch would'nt apply if I include it directly.
>
> >Sorry, but I find your approach grotesque. Apart from basic warts such
> >as not declaring code+data as __init, the approach of populating the
> >bitfield from yet another list doesn't appeal to me. I'd much rather
> >see an approach which preserved the initialisation using bitmasks.
>
> I do not think this patch is very nice either & it does not work at
> all (the initialisation of the array is only called in error case).
Now you've confused me. Your patch seems to unconditionally initialise
the bitfields at startup. I didn't see logic for restricting that
initialisation to an error path.
> I find the overall thing for registering/deregistering devices &
> allocating majors very inconsistent.
> devfs_alloc_major and devfs_register_*dev do hold the information
> about which majors are allocated in two different places without
> knowing about each other (bdops field and this private bitfield).
> A good solution would be if *dev_register would never return a major
> being statically allocated when called with major 0. If this is the
> case, I do not see what alloc_major and dealloc_major are useful
> for.
Except that devfs_register_???dev() (which are in fact minor
variations on the register_???dev() calls) *do not* avoid assigned
majors. That is why I wrote devfs_alloc_major() in the first place.
And while I do think that register_???dev() should in fact do just
what devfs_alloc_major() does, that's not a battle I care to fight. By
writing devfs_alloc_major(), this functionality is optional, and I can
avoid a whole pile of stupid flaming.
Hey, hey! It looks like vger is sending emails again!
Regards,
Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-02-18 18:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-02-18 10:01 Carsten Otte
2002-02-18 17:56 ` Richard Gooch [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-03-20 12:27 Carsten Otte
2002-03-25 2:28 ` Richard Gooch
2002-02-21 14:48 Carsten Otte
2002-02-12 11:18 Carsten Otte
2002-02-11 13:00 Carsten Otte
2002-02-11 16:12 ` Russell King
2002-02-11 21:05 ` Anton Blanchard
2002-02-12 0:33 ` David S. Miller
2002-02-18 1:02 ` Richard Gooch
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200202181756.g1IHukh32273@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca \
--to=rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca \
--cc=COTTE@de.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®