Date: Sat, 22 Apr 95 20:51:21 MDT From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) To: rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com (Rodney W. Grimes) Cc: pritc003@maroon.tc.umn.edu, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: More devfs stuff Message-ID: <9504230251.AA10096@cs.weber.edu> In-Reply-To: <199504220733.AAA01174@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> from "Rodney W. Grimes" at Apr 22, 95 00:33:55 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > examples that list /dev/pty/00 as the format they want (for example). [ ... ] > > Repeat after me: future expansion, future expansion... > > Then do it really right, and don't use leading zero's to imply an > upper limit. Look at the current /dev/fd, it works just fine and > has no upper bounds (well, okay the minor is still a limit at what, > 24 bits??). The minor number is irrelevent. A properly articulated devfs will result in the death of specfs. On the other hand, there are many reporting tools (ps, etc.) that have a limit on the number of tty type devices based on a interface identifier character and one or two instance identifiers (for ps this is one). A leading 0 simplifies some aspects of reporting and autogeneration while only eating 10 (0-9 + 00-09 vs. 00-09) devices (a max of 10% per increment, assuming you didn't find a distinction between 0 and 00 a bit too confusing anyway). Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9504230251.AA10096>