Re: Should osst call cdev_alloc()
From: Willem Riede (wrlk_at_riede.org)
Date: 10/23/04
- Previous message: Rui Nuno Capela: "Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-mm1-U10.2"
- In reply to: Kai Makisara: "Re: Should osst call cdev_alloc()"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 21:14:53 +0000 To: Kai Makisara <Kai.Makisara@kolumbus.fi>
On 10/23/2004 04:56:06 PM, Kai Makisara wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004, Willem Riede wrote:
>
> > Currently, sg.c and st.c contain calls to cdev_alloc() and friends:
> >
> > My question is: should osst do the same? It seems to work just fine
> without.
> >
> The reason why st.c calls cdev_alloc() directly is that this allows it to
> use the large minor numbers (some people want to use more than 32 tapes).
> This also used to give presence in sysfs but that is not the case any
> more. The devices can be shown in sysfs using device classes (st.c uses
> the class_simple_* functions).
>
> Osst does call cdev_alloc() indirectly through register_chrdev(). This is
> the link between the "old style" character device allocation and the
> current method. As long as register_chrdev() exists, you don't have any
> pressing need to change osst unless you want to support more than 256
> minors.
Thanks. Given that the Onstream devices were targeted at the low end market, I
see no need to support many drives of this type, so I'll leave it as it is.
Willem Riede.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Previous message: Rui Nuno Capela: "Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-mm1-U10.2"
- In reply to: Kai Makisara: "Re: Should osst call cdev_alloc()"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
