Re: [PATCH] umode_t changes from Adam's mini-devfs

[Adam J. Richter]

Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>The use of umode_t instead of devfs-specific char vs block #defines
>in Adam's mini-devfs patch makes sense independant of whether his patch
>should get merged.  While reviewing his changes I also notices that
>most of the number allocation functionality in devfs has no business
>beeing exported.  In addition I cleaned up devfs_alloc_devnum/
>devfs_dealloc_devnum a bit.

	It looks good to me, although I haven't tried it or fully
comprehended every line of Christoph's devfs_{,de}alloc_devnum cleanup
(I have looked at it a bit before sending this email though).

	One really minor suggestion: perhaps Christoph could add an
entry in the giant change log in fs/devfs/util.c so that people know
who to contact if there is a problem with his number allocation
change.

Adam J. Richter     __     ______________   575 Oroville Road
[e-mail]     \ /                  Milpitas, California 95035
[phone]         | g g d r a s i l   United States of America
                         "Free Software For The Rest Of Us."