Message-Id:	<3.0.1.32.19980128065330.007b2100@yacker.xiotech.com>
Date:	Wed, 28 Jan 1998 06:53:30 -0600
To:	DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
From:	Randy Maas <randym AT acm DOT org>
Subject:	Re: invent inode docs
Cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il
In-Reply-To:	<199801280255.VAA24626@delorie.com>
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 980127144751 DOT 843D-100000 AT is>
Mime-Version:	1.0

At 09:55 PM 1/27/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Um, why can't we have an fsext function to allocate new *major* device
>numbers (starting after drive #32) ?  Then the fsext can invent minor
>device numbers by its own scheme.  This is better than trying to fake
>a file path with MS-DOS.

This doesn't bother me.  I rather like it and wish I thought of it;  it is
much simpler than the method I've used (fondling the path, etc.)

I wanted to try to point out some devils advocate points, but I could only
come up with one:

* One beauty of the fsext scheme is that is simple, both conceptually and
in implementation.  Using a path to identify a device is "cognitively"
simple; the <major dev no., minor dev no.> of unix requires (atleat for me)
a lot of thought to keep things straight.

Randy

- Raw text -