Re: [PATCH RFC] char/tty_io: fix legacy pty name when more than 256pty devices are requested

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 09/08/2009 07:54 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>
>> IMO, no less weird than a random shift from one naming algorithm to
>> another in the middle of the sequence.
> 
> Ok, your algorithm will be fully compatible with the old naming system, as
> you're encoding the nibbles on this order:
> 	[7:4][3:0][*:8]
> 

Actually it's [7:4][*:8][3:0].  It was the easiest way to get backwards
compatibility, since it allowed for the use of s[n]printf().  It's not
by any means the only possibility, but I think the easiest one to describe.

> From one side, I liked the idea of not having any arbitrary maximum limit, but
> from other side, It seems easier to implement than to describe it in English,
> at devices.txt. Maybe the solution is to explain it by examples.
> 
> Also, if we look at the current device designation, we already have some rule
> changes. 

That doesn't mean it's a good idea.


-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/