Re: biggest... check-in... ever...

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 11:47:30AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:08:58AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> Tomorrow, I will check in my massive rewrite of fhandler stuff to deal
>> with devices in a different way.  It will eventually allow on-disk
>> device files.  It sort of does now but managed mode clobbered this a
>> little.
>
>after a long pause I tried the branch again.
>
>There's still the naming of the harddisk devices which is different
>from what they are named before.  They should be named /dev/sd.., 
>not /dev/hd..

I haven't forgotten about this.  It's on my todo.  It falls under the
"some things will be broken".

>Makefile.in is missing a rule to create devices.cc from devices.gperf.
>I tried `gperf -t -D --language=C++ devices.gperf > devices.cc' and the
>same without language option but both calls result in a bunch of error
>messages.  How do I call it correctly?

I'll add a rule.  I don't know how it disappeared.

>The last point is, I'm not sure a hash is appropriate here.  What's
>the gain?  The fixed devices are always prepended by "/dev/", so this
>part has no meaning in the hash at all.  The remainder of the name is
>mostly 3 chars in length.  Wouldn't a binary array search be better
>for this?  It would drop the need to use gperf, btw.

If you can find some kind of binary tree compiler similar to gperf,
I'll certainly consider it.

cgf