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 09:33:27 -0500 |
| |
On Fri, 2003-04-11 at 06:42, Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote: > Here is my problem.. > > #insmod ips.o > < found 10 disks> > #insmod qla2300.o > < found 10 disks> > #rmmod ips.o > <removed 10 disks> > #insmod ips.o > <found 10 disks - but new names> > > OK, I see what you mean. I agree.
Could you elaborate on the reason you want to keep the minor space compact? I don't regard the insmod/rmmod problem as valid because if you do:
rmmod ips.o rmmod qla2300.o insmod qla2300.o insmod ips.o
All bets are off again. For small kernel dev_t it was essential to keep a compact minor space because otherwise we coulde run out of minors. Sparse minors cause no inefficiency in the mid-layer, or in sd. There are problems in sg which could be solved by encoding the device type in the minor.
> [I see that dougg wants to solve such things by properly naming, > but that is a higher level. Given a large number space an > easier solution is to give each module its own part of the > number space.]
Please, no. Dividing up the minor space like this would be a step backwards (adding more policy to the kernel). Someone would also have to manage this scheme.
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/
| |