On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:47:34PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 09:43:05PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > The userspace breakage is that if someone has a static /dev that doesn't > > handle any dynamic devices then renumbering the device will cause that > > static /dev to stop matching the kernel. > Diddums and you've only provided theoretical cases not real world ones. I'm fairly sure I have some older boards on my desk with static /dev, I'd need to go and check which is rather more effort than I'm interested in putting in for point scoring. > They should have followed proper practice and reserved their minors. The > device number belongs to the Altix. The driver should just move. They should have done that about a decade ago when this stuff was introduced, yes. At some point one has to accept and deal with the world as it is. > But yes I agree about the idiom, but a definite NAK to any attempts to > plaster over this grand screwup by crapping in the tty core. Your turd, > deal with it locally in the ARM code if you can't apply common sense and > just go dynamic. Local bodges being the first two patches Greg knocked back of course... In any case, if we can convince people to make the subsystem better and coincidentally also stop problems occuring on their systems that does seem like a win overall. > And please, after screwing this up twice - *learn* from the mess. One of the things we've been trying to do is to ensure that the all the driver code that isn't core architecture support (not just for ARM, for everything) is going into subsystems so we're getting good review from people who actually know the subsystems and aren't just saying things are random platform stuff or whatever that we don't care about. That has been a source of problems all over, we're trying to avoid it.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
