Re: Larger dev_t

2001-03-26 Thread John Byrne
hat determines device type by comparing with the major/minor numbers should probably be discouraged in the long run and this could be a good time to start. John Byrne - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: Larger dev_t

2001-03-26 Thread John Byrne
by comparing with the major/minor numbers should probably be discouraged in the long run and this could be a good time to start. John Byrne - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo inf

Re: Getting past the 16-bit dev_t limitation.

2000-09-18 Thread John Byrne
"H. Peter Anvin" wrote: > > Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > By author:John Byrne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > > > Anyway, one of the things I was hoping to find out by going to > > linux-kernel was

Re: Getting past the 16-bit dev_t limitation.

2000-09-18 Thread John Byrne
"H. Peter Anvin" wrote: Followup to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] By author:John Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel Anyway, one of the things I was hoping to find out by going to linux-kernel was if there was anything other than devfs in the offing: such a la

Re: Getting past the 16-bit dev_t limitation.

2000-09-14 Thread John Byrne
Matt Yourst wrote: > > > > >I am working on a project that is going to find the current limit of > >16-bits for device numbers to be a pain. While looking around in the > >linux-kernel archive, ... > > > This is the whole reason Linux 2.4 uses devfs (device filesystem) - > there is no need to

Re: Getting past the 16-bit dev_t limitation.

2000-09-14 Thread John Byrne
Helge Hafting wrote: > > John Byrne wrote: > > > 1.) Can anyone tell me if there is a (Linus approved) solution in the > > works for this for the 2.4.xx kernel series? > > > I am also curious whether there are plans to do away with the whole > > concept o

Re: Getting past the 16-bit dev_t limitation.

2000-09-14 Thread John Byrne
Helge Hafting wrote: John Byrne wrote: 1.) Can anyone tell me if there is a (Linus approved) solution in the works for this for the 2.4.xx kernel series? I am also curious whether there are plans to do away with the whole concept of major/minor numbers; Consider reading up

Re: Getting past the 16-bit dev_t limitation.

2000-09-14 Thread John Byrne
Matt Yourst wrote: I am working on a project that is going to find the current limit of 16-bits for device numbers to be a pain. While looking around in the linux-kernel archive, ... This is the whole reason Linux 2.4 uses devfs (device filesystem) - there is no need to use device

Getting past the 16-bit dev_t limitation.

2000-09-13 Thread John Byrne
Hello, I am working on a project that is going to find the current limit of 16-bits for device numbers to be a pain. While looking around in the linux-kernel archive, I found a series of e-mails about this from late last year in which was discussed the introduction of the kdev_t type and the

Getting past the 16-bit dev_t limitation.

2000-09-13 Thread John Byrne
Hello, I am working on a project that is going to find the current limit of 16-bits for device numbers to be a pain. While looking around in the linux-kernel archive, I found a series of e-mails about this from late last year in which was discussed the introduction of the kdev_t type and the