On Fri, 10 May 2002, Hauke Fath wrote:

> >2) change it to use dynamic numbers. :-)

I take that back. Hauke is right, if we have specific major numbers where
dirvers are supposed to be, we should have the lkm attach there.

> If the author of said lkm may speak up here... The merit of the iwm driver

Certainly!

> lkm lies primarily in the fact that it is the only example for a block
> driver lkm in the tree.
>
> It is hackish because the lkm 'framework' as designed by Terry Lambert does
> not really support a driver with both character and block device interface.
> Since the device majors are already allocated, the driver reuses them
> instead of having a script create /dev device nodes during modload.

Yep, makes sense.

> Unfortunately, as I had to learn the hard way, the value of a driver lkm as
> a development aid is nearly zero as long as there is no symbol loading
> support for lkms.

That's another problem. ;-)

Take care,

Bill