Chris Emerson wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Bryan Meredith wrote:
>
> > Chris Emerson wrote:
> >
> > > Is there a general consensus about what to apply for? There hasn't
> > > been any discussion on the topic for a few days.
> > >
> > > It sounds to me like we want a single char minor device for
> > > /dev/plex86. Now's the time to disagree - we don't want to have to
> > > change later if we can help it. Agreements also welcome, of course.
> > > :-)
> >
> > Why not just leave it dynamic???
>
> Because that's really only a hack to use while developing. Having
> your own assigned number (major or minor) is how things are done. If
> nothing else, you don't really want to have to recreate /dev/plex86
> every time you load the module.
>
> Chris
Agreed (but see the new devfs).
As we are still developing, how about using the hack until we are
absolutely certain about our requirements?
Maybe we will want a separate device for some other purpose at some time in
the future?
We cannot lose by waiting to see how things pan out and the scripts are as
easy to use as the current method of module insertion.
Bryan
