From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jun  9 16:48:29 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3645816A4CE
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Wed,  9 Jun 2004 16:48:29 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C4AE43D1F
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Wed,  9 Jun 2004 16:48:29 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from mux@freebsd.org)
Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1920)
	id 641F55C850; Wed,  9 Jun 2004 09:48:12 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 18:48:12 +0200
From: Maxime Henrion <mux@freebsd.org>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Message-ID: <20040609164812.GW9228@elvis.mu.org>
References: <53993.1086779790@critter.freebsd.dk>
	<55790.1086796559@critter.freebsd.dk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <55790.1086796559@critter.freebsd.dk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 16:48:29 -0000

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 reasonable.

> 	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).

Yes, please! :-)

Cheers,
Maxime