Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?

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

  • Next message: Doug White: "Re: fflush() on readonly files" 
    Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 14:02:45 -0600
To: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au>

    Peter Jeremy wrote:

    > On Wed, 2004-Jun-09 13:16:30 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
    >
    >>The benefit is that we get the dev_t/udev_t confusion solved, the
    >>disadvantage (apart from the churn) is that we reduce the already
    >>limited direct source compatibility with other BSDs a bit further.
    >
    >
    > Getting rid of the confusing situation where the same type name
    > means totally different things in userland and kernel is a big win.
    > We can always try to convince the other BSDs to follow suit.

    The other BSDs use dev_t in both kernel and userland to mean the same
    thing, which is equivalent to how we use udev_t. Fixing this has a lot
    of benefits and I'm totally in favor of it. I share Warner's concern
    about 4.x/5.x compatibility, but I gave up on that in my drivers long
    ago since the API have changed to much.

    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: Doug White: "Re: fflush() on readonly files"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?
      ... >limited direct source compatibility with other BSDs a bit further. ... Getting rid of the confusing situation where the same type name ... We can always try to convince the other BSDs to follow suit. ...
      (freebsd-arch)
    • Re: What Is Linux?
      ... see your idea working in practice. ... The *BSDs are developed as a system; kernel, utilities, and user ... John ...
      (linux.redhat)