kernel dev_t elimination patch for review

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

In message <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040611084726.64565D-100000 at fledge.watson.org>, Robe
rt Watson writes:

>It looks reasonable to me, although bde will no doubt point out there are
>a couple of places where function declarations get too long for a line,
>comments don't line up, etc.

He already did :-)

>Do you plan to eliminate udev_t in a following step and return it to
>dev_t?  There are some positive and negative aspecets of doing so relating
>to cross-platform compatibility, one suspects, but it would be nice for
>consistency purposes now that the kernel dev_t is gone.

Yes, that is the second half of this change.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk at FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.