Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 14:02:45 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> To: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Subject: Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ? Message-ID: <40C76CE5.9080204@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20040609193950.GF1596@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> References: <53993.1086779790@critter.freebsd.dk> <20040609193950.GF1596@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Jeremy wrote: > On Wed, 2004-Jun-09 13:16:30 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >>The benefit is that we get the dev_t/udev_t confusion solved, the >>disadvantage (apart from the churn) is that we reduce the already >>limited direct source compatibility with other BSDs a bit further. > > > Getting rid of the confusing situation where the same type name > means totally different things in userland and kernel is a big win. > We can always try to convince the other BSDs to follow suit. The other BSDs use dev_t in both kernel and userland to mean the same thing, which is equivalent to how we use udev_t. Fixing this has a lot of benefits and I'm totally in favor of it. I share Warner's concern about 4.x/5.x compatibility, but I gave up on that in my drivers long ago since the API have changed to much. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?40C76CE5.9080204>