Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch for playing] Patch to support 4000 disks and maintain backward compatibility | From | James Bottomley <> | Date | 11 Apr 2003 14:12:18 -0500 |
| |
On Fri, 2003-04-11 at 13:07, Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote: > It is just that Badari and I were talking about the numbering scheme > index = next_index++ and he pointed out that the current system > has a certain weak number preservation guarantee that this > index = next_index++ does not have. True.
Yes. I was just pointing out this was a byproduct of our compaction requirement in 8:8, not necessarily a guarantee I think needs preserving.
> It is me who wants compatibility as far as 8+8 device numbers are > concerned, while I can see lots of ways to use new number space.
This, I'm not too sure about. I see the value to kernel developers who boot between different versions of the kernel, but I think when 2.6 goes live and ships to end users, it's better not to have such numeric equivalency crufting up the SCSI interfaces.
James
- 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/
| |