Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 11:11:53 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: davidg@root.com Cc: julian@ref.tfs.com, jkh@time.cdrom.com, terry@lambert.org, jhay@mikom.csir.co.za, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPX now available Message-ID: <199510131811.LAA17908@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199510130524.WAA00559@corbin.Root.COM> from "David Greenman" at Oct 12, 95 10:24:34 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> > The gist of this is that he wants to work on putting simple linker code > >> > into the kernel, and I very much agree with him. > >> > >> Assuming that you and the anti-bloatists can work this out, this and > >> everything following it certainly sounds reasonable to me. > >> > >> dev_add_char (just dev_add?) > >> dev_remove_char (just dev_remove?) > >devfs already has dev_add() and dev_link() > >these are called by the driver to make a new device in devfs > >or to make a new 'link' to an existing device in devfs. > >dev_remove is there too but not really implimented.. > >maybe I should change the names to devfs_add et al. > > I must be missing something - why are these mutually exclusive? Because you want to get rid of the character/block distinction at the registration mechanism level to reduce the number of registration interfaces to one per kernel component class. If you can do it reasoanbly, that is. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- 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?199510131811.LAA17908>