From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 08:50:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 08:50:30 -0500 Received: from smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.138]:17673 "EHLO smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 08:50:29 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 16:01:47 +0200 (CEST) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@serv To: Andries Brouwer cc: Badari Pulavarty , , Subject: Re: 64-bit kdev_t - just for playing In-Reply-To: <20030403133725.GA14027@win.tue.nl> Message-ID: References: <200303311541.50200.pbadari@us.ibm.com> <200304020931.38671.pbadari@us.ibm.com> <20030403133725.GA14027@win.tue.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Andries Brouwer wrote: > > I am really interested why nobody wants to do now > > that small deciding step to use dynamic dev_t numbers. > > Because we first want to have the numbers before using them? Yes, I know this mantra now and that's not the problem (or will be fixed shortly). This still doesn't answer what will come next. You must have _some_ idea, otherwise you wouldn't add a new interface, remove other infrastructure and provide a patch which modifies MKDEV & co. All of this only leads us away from the goal of dynamic device numbers. Why? bye, Roman