On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:44:05PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> This isn't adequately tested, and I don't have a demonstration (yet). >> It's here for review for whether it's a good idea in the first place >> and for weather the fully_dynamic mechanism is a good idea. >> >> The current character device interfaces are IMO awful. > > That's a total understatement. Redoing the char interface has been in > my todo list for a decade now. It's the complexity that happens to be > used by just a handful of drivers that have prevented me from doing the > rework in the past. Creating a "new" interface that we then port code > to is a very good idea, as it can happen over time in a much more > orderly way. > > And we can throw the kernel-janitors people at it once it's working, to > convert the rest of the tree, providing them a useful outlet for their > need for patch cleanups :) > > So yes, I'm all for this, thanks so much for looking into this. I'm at > a conference this week, but will go over it on the plane home and give > you some review comments. It would be nice to make the reference counting cleaner, perhaps by tying a chardev minor more directly to a struct device, but I wasn't sure how to do that usefully. --Andy > > greg k-h -- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
