Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?

From: Scott Long (scottl_at_freebsd.org)
Date: 06/09/04

  • Next message: Poul-Henning Kamp: "Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?" 
    Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 11:02:24 -0600
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>

    Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

    > In message <53993.1086779790@critter.freebsd.dk>, Poul-Henning Kamp writes:
    >
    >
    >>The change proposed is more or less to do:
    >> s/dev_t/struct cdev */
    >> s/udev_t/dev_t/
    >>over all the kernel sources (366 files or so).
    >
    >
    > Looks like a "yea" so far, so I have a couple of follow-up questions:
    >
    > struct cdev currently has members named si_* because it
    > used to be called "specinfo", do we want to change that
    > inconsistency at the same time ? (either by reverting to
    > the specinfo name or by changing to a cd_ prefix ?

    Sounds fine to me. No prefix at all would work too.

    >
    > cdevsw->ioctl() takes a caddr_t pointer argument which
    > really should be a void *, do we want to change that
    > as well (since it is all the same files we'll have to
    > change).
    >

    Is this going to have any consequences on COMPAT_LINUX code or anything
    else that calls ioctl() through obscure means?

    Scott
    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

  • Next message: Poul-Henning Kamp: "Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?
      ... On Wednesday 09 June 2004 11:55 am, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: ... Sure, maybe dev_foo prefix? ... consistent. ... To unsubscribe, ...
      (freebsd-arch)
    • Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?
      ... On Wednesday 09 June 2004 11:55 am, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: ... Sure, maybe dev_foo prefix? ... consistent. ... To unsubscribe, ...
      (freebsd-arch)