> On Jul 18, 2023, at 8:51 PM, David Holland <dholland-t...@netbsd.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 03:25:02PM -0700, Jason Thorpe wrote:
>> That *might* work in this particular case, but it would not work
>> for e.g. a cloning device where you get additional descriptors via
>> dup() or whatever.
>
> Don't cloner instances differ in minor number? If not, shouldn't they?
Not that I’m aware of. They result in a new file object with a new private
data pointer, but they don’t change the minor number and I don’t see why
forcing them to do so would be such a good idea. What if you had a single
driver (that consumes a major # slot) that wanted to provide two cloning
interfaces? If each clone got its own minor #, then you’d be artificially
limiting how many could be created.
-- thorpej
