lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] mmc: add config and runtime option for number of mmcblk minors
From
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 05:19:25PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 16:57, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 10:25:58PM +0800, Lei Wen wrote:
>> >
>> >> The patch's purpose is good. As modern sd&mmc is used to host the file
>> >> system, the 8 partition limitation is becoming a kind of bottleneck...
>> >> But why not just add GENHD_FL_EXT_DEVT flag to allow mmc use extended
>> >> partition numbers?
>> >
>> > No need to quote the whole patch next time. :)
>> >
>> > Given that MMC is sometimes used in deeply embedded environments where
>> > udev might not be running to take care of dynamic device numbering,
>> > I chose to stay with a static layout.
>> >
>> > I could be convinced otherwise though. It would cause some additional
>> > hassles for me since we start udev lateish during boot and have a
>> > prepopulated /dev before that, but that can be dealt with.
>>
>> I think the extended number are only used for stuff larger than the static 8?
>
> Ah, yes, of course.
>
>> Apart from that, you can not reliably or securely use a static /dev
>> these days, you never know which device you talk to, because the
>> kernel has far too many dynamically assigned numbers. For that reason,
>> most embedded setups use the busybox hack to populate /dev. Recent
>> kernels have a devfs again, and there is no reason today to continue
>> any static /dev experiments -- unless someone is going over the entire
>> tree and fixes all the dynamic assignments, which is unlikely to
>> happen ever.
>
> Yeah, it's a weak argument but I wanted to go for the least surprising
> one for anyone who still relies on static numbering of mmc, since it's
> used as root device, etc.
>
> But with the first 8 minors being the same as before, there's little
> reason to care about that -- the EXT_DEVT approach will actually be
> the smaller change, since it won't renumber anything, just extend in a
> different part of the address space.
>
> Lei, want to submit a proper patch for it to replace mine?

I have a tested patch for this. It also cleans up the connection
between devidx and minor numbers. I'll send it shortly.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-09-08 18:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site