Messages in this thread | | | From | "Eric Youngdale" <> | Subject | Re: [Patch] Cleanup struct gendisk registration, 2.3.40-pre1 | Date | Sun, 16 Jan 2000 00:10:58 -0500 |
| |
I looked through the thread on linux-kernel (I can browse via the web, but the entire thread isn't there yet, because the stuff below is a non-sequitor in relation to what is there now). Someone is going to have to help me get caught up on the thread, as it will be hard for me to say anything intelligent until I know what we are talking about :-). Are we really talking about something for 2.4, or has this thread evolved into planning for 2.5?
For what it is worth, those damned per-major tables are the major thing that is keeping me from eliminating those compiled in SD_EXTRA_DEVS limits that keep people from loading an arbitrary number of additional devices via modules. I was toying with the idea of essentially encapsulating access to these tables behind some lightweight API functions that would use appropriate locking so that these tables could be grown whenever needed. Once all of the direct usages of the data structures is encapsulated, then changing the underlying data structures to something more sane (instead of tables indexed by major) would be a breeze, relatively speaking. I wasn't planning on doing anything at all with this until 2.5, however.
-Eric
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexander Viro" <aviro@redhat.com> To: "Andre Hedrick" <andre@suse.com> Cc: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@transmeta.com>; "Alan Cox" <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>; "Alexander Viro" <aviro@redhat.com>; "Guest section DW" <dwguest@win.tue.nl>; "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>; <linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu>; "Ben LaHaise" <bcrl@redhat.com>; "Alan Cox" <number6@the-village.bc.nu>; "Eric Youngdale" <eric@andante.org> Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2000 9:40 PM Subject: Re: [Patch] Cleanup struct gendisk registration, 2.3.40-pre1
> > > > On Sat, 15 Jan 2000, Andre Hedrick wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 15 Jan 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 16 Jan 2000, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > > > > > I'd much rather this redoing of stuff didnt expand further. The job list > > > > is growing not shrinking right now. Its making me jumpy at least. > > > > > > I'm definitely nervous about growing changes, but at the same time I'd > > > hate to say "no" to a pending cleanup of an area that really is a bit too > > > tangled, and where a lot of the issues are just shrouded in mystery and > > > years of historical reasons.. > > > > Eric, > > > > Welcome to the party...... > > > > It looks like it is time to clean house on this issue. > > I am in, to resolve and contribute for IDE. You name came up before in > > another discussion about SCSI I had the other day. > > > > I suggested Linux consider the move to a default packet global block > > device layer and both SCSI and IDE plug into it. > > > > I checked with T13 and possed the question of moving all of ATA to ATAPI, > > the vice chairman explained to me that the translation lay would be to > > thick and involved..........I am game to prove them wrong......... > > > > Your thoughts to merge the two major block subsystems into one... > > Ouch... Guys, before it will get us too far - let's decide on isolation of > _both_ IDE and SCSI from VFS (along with the rest of block devices). Then > it will become much more edible... >
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |