On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 01:15:25PM -0800, Dunlap, Randy wrote:
> > > There's other reason for that. One major is for ttyACM*,
> > second is for
> > > cuaACM*.
> >
> > I thought cua devices went away some time ago and are no
> > longer needed?
> > With the functionality replaced by O_NONBLOCK?
>
> Pavel is correct about why I listed 166 & 167.
> As for cua devices going away, they are still listed in
> Documentation/devices.txt. That's what I based my
> device numbers listing on.
Well, acm.c uses just first 32 minors on 166. Can use up to 255, but
there is no support for using 167.
--
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
