Re: kcmp(2)

[Jason Thorpe <thorpej%me.com@localhost>]

> On Jul 18, 2023, at 8:51 PM, David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 03:25:02PM -0700, Jason Thorpe wrote:
>> That *might* work in this particular case, but it would not work
>> for e.g. a cloning device where you get additional descriptors via
>> dup() or whatever.
> 
> Don't cloner instances differ in minor number? If not, shouldn't they?

Not that I’m aware of.  They result in a new file object with a new private data pointer, but they don’t change the minor number and I don’t see why forcing them to do so would be such a good idea.  What if you had a single driver (that consumes a major # slot) that wanted to provide two cloning interfaces?  If each clone got its own minor #, then you’d be artificially limiting how many could be created.

-- thorpej