On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Rob Love wrote: > > On Thu, 2004-01-01 at 10:48, Andries Brouwer wrote: > > I am afraid I have to disappoint you. I made them 64-bit, > > and I think they were 64-bit for a few months in the -mm tree, > > forgot the details, but unfortunately Al went back to 32-bit again. > > You did disappoint me! My heart is crushed and my aspirations for the > future ruined. > > But you are right, dunno what I was thinking. Note that one reason I didn't much like the 64-bit versions is that not only are they bigger, they also encourage insanity. Ie you'd find SCSI people who want to try to encode device/controller/bus/target/lun info into the device number. We should resist any effort that makes the numbers "mean" something. They are random cookies. Not "unique identifiers", and not "addresses". The unique identifiers you get from things like udev, using contents of the device itself or user preferences etc. That's outside the scope of the kernel. The addresses you get from /sys. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Follow-Ups:
- Re: udev and devfs - The final wordAndries Brouwer
- Re: udev and devfs - The final wordAndries Brouwer
- Re: udev and devfs - The final wordRob Love
- Re: udev and devfs - The final wordRob Landley
- Re: udev and devfs - The final wordRob Love
- Re: udev and devfs - The final wordAndries Brouwer
- Re: udev and devfs - The final wordRob Love
- Prev by Date: Re: XFS forced shutdown with kernel 2.6.0
- Next by Date: Re: siginfo_t fracturing, especially for 64/32-bit compatibilitymode
- Previous by thread: Re: udev and devfs - The final word
- Next by thread: Re: udev and devfs - The final word
- Indexes:[Main][Thread]