From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 14 May 2001 17:20:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 14 May 2001 17:20:42 -0400 Received: from router-100M.swansea.linux.org.uk ([194.168.151.17]:60681 "EHLO the-village.bc.nu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 14 May 2001 17:20:32 -0400 Subject: Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants To: torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds) Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 22:16:43 +0100 (BST) Cc: jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com (Jeff Garzik), alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox), hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (Linux Kernel Mailing List), viro@math.psu.edu In-Reply-To: from "Linus Torvalds" at May 14, 2001 01:29:51 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Alan Cox Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Big device numbers are _not_ a solution. I will accept a 32-bit one, but > no more, and I will _not_ accept a "manage by hand" approach any more. The > time has long since come to say "No". Which I've done. If you can't make > it manage the thing automatically with a script, you won't get a hardcoded > major device number just because you're lazy. And on that issue I'm so convinced you are wrong I'm prepared to maintain sensible Unix device behaviour in the -ac pretty much indefinitely. > End of discussion. And that is precisely why .... Abstract device file systems are beautiful concepts but they don't solve the device name space problem and they introduce hideous incompatibilities with existing software. Plan 9 is beautiful. It has a userbase approximately the size of Linux 0.12 - because it is not compatible. Alan