From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 9 18:32:24 2004 Return-Path: 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 45A6116A4CE for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 18:32:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.village.org [168.103.84.182]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3AE443D46 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 18:32:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i59IUjWG046042; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 12:30:45 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 12:31:01 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20040609.123101.08394961.imp@bsdimp.com> To: danfe@nsu.ru From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20040609142911.GA43972@regency.nsu.ru> References: <53993.1086779790@critter.freebsd.dk> <20040609142911.GA43972@regency.nsu.ru> X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: arch@FreeBSD.org cc: phk@phk.freebsd.dk 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 18:32:24 -0000 In message: <20040609142911.GA43972@regency.nsu.ru> Alexey Dokuchaev writes: : On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 01:16:30PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: : > : > I have an item on my TODO list which says "fix dev_t / udev_t kernel : > confusion before 5-STABLE ?". : > : > The confusions is that in userland dev_t is an integer type which : > encodes the major+minor number of a device, in the kernel it it a : > pointer to "struct cdev" which represents the device to the kernel. : : Go for solving the confusion, phk. I'd sacrifice compatibility with : other BSDs here in sake of coherency. Actually, this makes us more compatible with other BSDs. They never went down this path. However, it does add costs to those companies (like the one I work for) that have to have drivers for both 4.x and 5.x. These costs can be managed, but it is a bit of a pain. Luckily for me, it looks like the conversion cost of other parts of the driver is high in comparison to this change, which incrementally increases it. I'm not sure that I like the churn this causes, but I'm not going to fight it. Warner