From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 22 May 2001 15:53:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 22 May 2001 15:53:33 -0400 Received: from hera.cwi.nl ([192.16.191.8]:7328 "EHLO hera.cwi.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 22 May 2001 15:53:22 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 21:52:45 +0200 (MET DST) From: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl Message-Id: To: torvalds@transmeta.com, viro@math.psu.edu Subject: Re: [PATCH] struct char_device Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alexander Viro writes: > patch below adds the missing half of kdev_t - > for block devices we already have a unique pointer > and that adds a similar animal for character devices. Very good. (Of course I did precisely the same, but am a bit slower in submitting things during a stable series or code freeze.) One remark, repeating what I wrote on some web page: ----- A struct block_device provides the connection between a device number and a struct block_device_operations. ... Clearly, we also want to associate a struct char_device_operations to a character device number. When we do this, all bdev code will have to be duplicated for cdev, so there seems no point in having bdev code - kdev, for both bdev and cdev, seems more elegant. ----- And a second remark: don't forget that presently the point where bdev is introduced is not quite right. We must only introduce it when we really have a device, not when there only is a device number (like on a mknod call). Andries