Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:52:10 -0500 (EST)
From:      Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu>
To:        Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@freebsd.org>
Cc:        arch@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: HEADSUP:  DEVFS and GEOM mandatorification timeline.
Message-ID:  <15909.37306.656490.486061@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>
In-Reply-To: <14715.1042634253@critter.freebsd.dk>
References:  <14715.1042634253@critter.freebsd.dk>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help


Speaking of /dev, driver writers, and API/ABI decisions to be made
before the 5.0-stable brach, I've got a minor axe to grind.  Factory
devices. 

Weren't you talking about changing the driver interface in such a way
as to make factory devices easier to implement on FreeBSD?  I would
*love* to see this in 5.0-stable so that I don't have to support the
clunky old way I came up with to handle it (conjuring a vnode out of
thin air..)  Or am I all wet, and its easy to do now?

What I'm after is passing the struct file all the way down to
open,close,ioctl,mmap,etc, and having a void * field in struct file
that a driver can hang a softc pointer off of.  That way an
application can always open /dev/foo0 and not have to hunt around in
the /dev namespace, looking for an unused minor /dev/foo299.  The
driver just looks at the struct file pointer it gets in ioctl for
example, and isn't limited to the major/minor number of the underlying
dev_t.

This would be a real boon to people porting linux drivers (aka, vmware).

Drew

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15909.37306.656490.486061>