On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 02:01:52AM +0200, Lubomir Sedlacik wrote:
quoted text
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 02:05:38PM -0700, Bill Stouder-Studenmund wrote:
> >=20
> > For now, the idea's to stick with current numbers. Adding a device
> > switch table as part of the request for a new major number, however,
> > makes sense.
> >=20
> > From the point of view of the devfs code, major numbers are just
> > things that are there. The code will work w/ static majors or with
> > dynamic majors. I think we'll need this code (devfs) to really make
> > dynamic majors work, but they are otherwise unrelated.
>=20
> While there, think how to avoid the issue with Solaris and name_to_major
> in cluster environment sooner than we actually get cluster support.  :)
>=20
> If you don't know what I am talking about, try:
>  http://www.google.com/search?q=3Dsolaris?ame_to_major?luster

Something got lost in translation above.

As best I can tell, the above's a consequence of how Solaris implemented=20
its dynamic device configuration.

I could be wrong, but I think what we have in mind is significantly
different, so that this issue doesn't really apply.

Take care,

Bill