Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 25 Mar 2001 16:35:38 +0200 | From | Martin Dalecki <> | Subject | Re: Larger dev_t |
| |
Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote: > > > > We need a size, and I am strongly in favor of sizeof(dev_t) = 8; > > this is already true in glibc. > > The fact that glibc is a quivering mass of bloat, and total and utter crap > makes you suggest that the Linux kernel should try to be as similar as > possible? > > Not a very strong argument. > > There is no way in HELL I will ever accept a 64-bit dev_t. > > I _will_ accept a 32-bit dev_t, with 12 bits for major numbers, and 20 > bits for minor numbers. > > If people cannot fit their data in that size, they have some serious > problems. And for people who think that you should have meaningful minor > numbers where the bit patterns get split up some way, I can only say "get > a frigging clue". That's what you have filesystem namespaces for. Don't > try to make binary name-spaces. > > And I don't care one _whit_ about the fact that Ulrich Drepper thinks that > it's a good idea to make things too large.
Amen. It's entierly sufficent to take a size similiar to the one on systems which don't have the problems linux has in this area. Our daily motto should be: "Maybe we don't know a shit about OS design - but we known very well up to the ground how Solaris works."
Please forgive me If I stressed your sense of humour a bit too much :-) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |