lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: devfs
On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> >> Another argument for devfs, is a sane scsi enumerating scheme (look to
> >> other posts to find out why it's needed).. It would be difficult do handle
> >> this (just to handle a single controler worth of names, accounting for
> >> setting up names for 6 partitions and 3 luns would require 864 nodes,
> >> idealy you would want to support 3 controlers, and the maximum luns
> >> available)..
> >
> > This isn't an argument for devfs. This is an argument for a larger
> > dev_t size. Before you can claim this as a reason for building a
> > devfs, you need to detail exactly how a devfs is magically going to
> > fix the above problem.
>
> Sanity check time! Let's see if your "fix" would work.
>
> bus 4 bits
> unit 8 bits
> LUN 8 bits
> partition 6 bits
> raw/cook/etc 2 bits
>
> Fine, /dev will be 4 to 8 GB. The linear search will be fun!
> Seriously, a larger dev_t will _not_ fix this problem.

And that is only for one controller. Now imagine having several of them.
A 12GB or even larger root partition would be real fun.

I can already see the smile on the faces of the hard disc
manufacturers.....


Mike


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:41    [W:0.015 / U:4.964 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site