Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: possible SCSI device numbering solution | Date | Thu, 27 Jun 1996 03:59:40 +0200 (MET DST) | From | "Carsten Paeth" <> |
| |
> > > > There is little point going through the disruption that changing it would > > > be, to change it again, so we may as well go to a 64 bit dev_t. One > > > thing tho, would we even need more than 65536 major devices? ie 16 bit > > > major, 48 bit minor (or 281474976710656 minor numbers (2.8*10^14) ;) > > > > I'm reminded of somebody saying, "they'll never need more than 640k". :-/ > > > > But anyhoot, 16/48 bit majors/minors seems reasonable to me. > > Of course, this is a blind guess - we really should discuss how > > majors/minors will be assigned and used first. We could easily gobble up > > 128-bits with a poor system, or, improve the current one and stick with > > 16-bits. > > any idea how the "ls -l" output should look like for larger dev_t ? > > crw-r----- 1 root kmem 1, 2 Aug 29 1992 /dev/kmem > brw-rw---- 1 root root 65535, 281474976710655 Apr 1 2001 /dev/last_dev_16_48 > brw-rw---- 1 root root 4294967295, 4294967295 Apr 1 2001 /dev/last_dev_32_32 > brw-rw---- 1 root disk 8, 0 May 4 1994 /dev/sda > > doesn't look too nice ;-)
I think it should be in hex, as in HPUX which has 32bit dev_t with 8bit major and 24bit minor.
> > Harald > -- > All SCSI disks will from now on ___ _____ > be required to send an email notice 0--,| /OOOOOOO\ > 24 hours prior to complete hardware failure! <_/ / /OOOOOOOOOOO\ > \ \/OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO\ > \ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|// > Harald Koenig, \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ > Inst.f.Theoret.Astrophysik // / \\ \ > koenig@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de ^^^^^ ^^^^^ >
calle -- calle@calle.in-berlin.de
|  |