Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Mar 2001 23:18:05 +0200 | From | Martin Dalecki <> | Subject | Re: Larger dev_t |
| |
Alan Cox wrote: > > > high-end-disks. Rather the reverse. I'm advocating the SCSI layer not > > hogging a major number, but letting low-level drivers get at _their_ > > requests directly. > > A major for 'disk' generically makes total sense. Classing raid controllers > as 'scsi' isnt neccessarily accurate. A major for 'serial ports' would also > solve a lot of misery
And IDE disk ver CD-ROM f and block vers. raw devices and so so at perpetuum. Those are the reaons why the density of majros ver. minors is exactly revers in solaris with respect to the proposal of Linus..
And then we have all those VERY SPARSE static arrays of major versus minor devices information (if you look at which cells from those arrays are used on a running system which maybe about 6-8 devices actually attached!)
The main sheer practical problem to changing kdev_t is the HUGE number of in fact entierly differnt drivers sharing the same major and splitting up the minor number space and then hooking devices with differnt block sizes and such on the same major. Many things in the block device layer handling could be simplefied significalty if one could assume for example that all the devices on one single major have the same block size and so on... - 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/
| |