From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jan 12 11:33:39 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA17231 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jan 1998 11:33:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from smtp03.primenet.com (smtp03.primenet.com [206.165.6.133]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA17195 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 1998 11:33:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr04.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp03.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA14858; Mon, 12 Jan 1998 12:32:30 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr04.primenet.com(206.165.6.204) via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpd014801; Mon Jan 12 12:32:20 1998 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr04.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA27920; Mon, 12 Jan 1998 12:32:10 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199801121932.MAA27920@usr04.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Change to config(8) To: brian@awfulhak.org (Brian Somers) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 19:32:10 +0000 (GMT) Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199801110342.DAA20820@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> from "Brian Somers" at Jan 11, 98 03:42:29 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > I'd like to commit this change, but I don't know if it's correct. > > AFAICT, because the minor() bit of a dev_t is only 8 bits, minors of > > 256 are useless. They also break the -current DEVFS code in that you > end up with an increased major number (oops!) if you (for example) > > pseudo-device tun 257 > > However, I haven't committed it because I don't know where things > like /dev/sd0s1 get their minors (0x00020002). Too much crap is encoded in minors. That's the main reason for DEVFS, in my mind. You *can't* netboot a FreeBSD box from a non-FreeBSD box in most cases because you *can't* mount a /dev with large enough minor's in the mknod for a physical /dev in the NFS mounted root. IMO, I think "tun" and other devices should be clone devices; this would allow you to dynamically allocate them without having to specify a hard count. You could still enforce a quota on instances, assuming you wanted to for whatever reason unknown to me... Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.