Re: USB device allocation

Jeff Garzik (jgarzik@pobox.com)
Wed, 06 Oct 1999 14:03:38 -0400

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Miquel van Smoorenburg: "Re: Red Hat 6.1 version.h modifications"
Previous message: Lucian B Landry: "[bug?] udp send to loopback and accept() dropping non-blocking status"
Maybe in reply to: Pavel Machek: "USB device allocation"
Next in thread: Richard B. Johnson: "Re: [bug?] udp send to loopback and accept() dropping non-blocking status"
Reply: Richard B. Johnson: "Re: [bug?] udp send to loopback and accept() dropping non-blocking status"

david parsons wrote:
>
> In article <linux.kernel.37FA7D3A.F66BFB27@pobox.com>,
> Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> wrote:
> >"H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
> >> Actually, the need is for a decent-sized dev_t.
> >
> >We're still pre-code-freeze... it would be great to change this before
> >2.4.0.
>
> 3.0
>
> That's a pretty major kernel interface change that will break
> close to everything in userland. If version numbers mean
> anything, this sort of change is suited for a major version
> number revision.

Will changing kdev_t (see linux/kdev_t.h) break userland? Or just cause
a module recompile and break mknod?

Jeff

-- Custom driver development | Never worry about theory as long Open source programming | as the machinery does what it's | supposed to do. -- R. A. Heinlein

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

Next message: Miquel van Smoorenburg: "Re: Red Hat 6.1 version.h modifications"
Previous message: Lucian B Landry: "[bug?] udp send to loopback and accept() dropping non-blocking status"
Maybe in reply to: Pavel Machek: "USB device allocation"
Next in thread: Richard B. Johnson: "Re: [bug?] udp send to loopback and accept() dropping non-blocking status"
Reply: Richard B. Johnson: "Re: [bug?] udp send to loopback and accept() dropping non-blocking status"