[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Meaning of blk_size
    On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 07:11:52PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:

    > One more question that has probably been asked a lot: why are the
    > various fields of a device splatted across half a dozen tables instead
    > of being collected together in a struct and accessed through one table?

    Yes, this has been asked a lot.

    I did this a few times. Half of the work was the introduction
    of the kdev_t opaque type - the patch was around 1.3.20.
    I am very glad this happened - it was a lot of work, determining
    for all integers in the kernel whether they held a device value
    or not. Today the kernel is seven times as large and such a change
    would be next to impossible.

    The other half increased in magnitude in the past five years.
    It is what you suggest: have a kdev_t that is a pointer to a
    struct that contains the fields that today live in these arrays.

    device size is a 64-bit bytecount, so no granularity problems.

    These days I have as background activity the construction
    of the corresponding patch for 2.4. Maybe we can start 2.5
    without these arrays and with large device numbers.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:39    [W:0.020 / U:22.536 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site