On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 07:17:54 pm Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > On 08/10/09 08:55, Amit Shah wrote: > >> Bad example. Quite a lot of modern devices drivers are using dynamic > >> major/minor numbers because they have proven to be such a pain in the > >> butt. That's why we have more sophisticated mechanisms like udev for > >> userspace to make use of. > > > > Let me explain how we came to this numbering: we first had support for > > 'naming' ports and the names were obtained by userspace programs by an > > ioctl. Rusty suggested to use some numbering scheme where some ports > > could exist at predefined locations so that we wouldn't need the naming > > and the ioctls around it. > > I think the naming is very important. I disagree. If you can hand out names, you can hand out numbers. Whether the guest chooses to put that number in sysfs or make it a minor, I don't care. Rusty. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
