Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 11 Oct 2001 15:19:08 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: 2.4.11 loses sda9 |
| |
On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote:
> so as to make it easy to switch between compiles where > a kdev_t is a number and we use the infamous arrays, > and compiles where a kdev_t is a pointer to a device struct, > and no arrays exist, I now see that get_hardsect_size(dev) > is replaced by > get_hardsect_size(to_kdev_t(bdev->bd_dev)) > . Yecch. > Al, I never understood why you want to introduce a > struct block_device * to do precisely what kdev_t > was designed to do.]
We had been through that way too many times. You know what problems with unified device struct I've brought before. You know what problems I have with your 64bit dev_t. And you know _very_ well that any patches in that area should be done in small steps.
Hell, I'd prefer that one to be done _much_ slower - with decent debugging between the steps instead of "we've got to close the holes opened by bdev-in-pagecache _NOW_" kind of situation we'd got.
IMO eventually we should have per-disk structure and keep reference to it from struct block_device. Then get_hardsect_size() wiuld turn into access to field of that beast (and would take struct block_device * as an argument). But that's 2.5 stuff and I bloody refuse to participate in attempts to do everything in one huge leap. One we'd got is already bad enough.
- 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/
|  |