In message <pine.gso.3.95q.990605113837.15420q-100...@elect8>, Nick Hibma
writes:
> > >While on the topic: Who is working on devfs and why not?
> >
> > I'm not currently working on devfs, but I am building the infrastructure
> > it should be based on in the kernel.
>
>Anymore information available on where you are with this?
I currently have a kernel running where dev_t is a pointer to a
"struct dev" and where char and block devs are collapsed at the
dev_t level. There are some bogons i need to fumigate, but I'm
off to give a course in Stockholm much of this coming week, so
don't expect any commits just now. (I may actually postpone/abandon
this step for now, since some of the changes pulls rugs away which
cover what looks to me like holes in the floor).
Next is to integrate the dev_t anti-aliasing and vnode anti-aliasing
code.
When I have that bit down and done, the next step is for device
drivers to register individual dev_t's rather than blanket cdevsw
entries. The later ability will be retained for pseudo drivers
and other (pseudo)magic.
This registration will look pretty much like the current #ifdef'ed
DEVFS stuff, and in addition it will allow the driver to hang two
fields of the dev_t, typically a pointer to the struct softc and
maybe a unit number or something. This will obsolete all of
the magic minor -> {unit|softc} converters in our drivers and
make the "NFOO" configuration obsolete.
That is, as such the end of this little project, and where a future
DEVFS could take off from. Basically all that is needed for a DEVFS
to do, is to hook into the dev_t maintenance code and construct
the directory tree.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member
p...@freebsd.org "Real hackers run -current on their laptop."
FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far!
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
