Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!jim
From: jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Bigger process IDs and "dev_t"s (was: Re: RISC v. CISC...)
Message-ID: <1254@stracs.cs.strath.ac.uk>
Date: 2 Nov 88 19:19:28 GMT
References: <156@gloom.UUCP> <6865@winchester.mips.COM> <468@oracle.UUCP> <314@auspex.UUCP> <1988Oct31.183021.13880@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: jim@cs.strath.ac.uk
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Scotland.
Lines: 16

In article <1988Oct31.183021.13880@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> ... on the merits/demerits of bigger dev_t's ......
>Clearly making dev_t 32 bits would make life easier.........

This has already happened on some machines. Sequent have done this on
Release 3 of their UNIX and I think Encore have done so too. They've had
to do this because it's not unknown for their boxes to be configured for
over 256 tty and/or ptys.

		Jim
-- 
ARPA:	jim%cs.strath.ac.uk@ucl-cs.arpa, jim@cs.strath.ac.uk
UUCP:	jim@strath-cs.uucp, ...!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!jim
JANET:	jim@uk.ac.strath.cs

"JANET domain ordering is swapped around so's there'd be some use for rev(1)!"