lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.4 To Pending Device Number Registrants
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 09:54:33AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > So I would think that this block of new major number allocations holds for
> > 2.5 and not 2.4. Also, if I'm correct, 2.4 won't be needing a lot of new
> > major numbers anyhow.
>
> I wouldnt bet on that. Going to a 32bit dev_t internally without user space
> noticing would keep it seems to be quite doable if we have to. Right now doesnt
> worry me, in 2 years time when 2.6 is approaching release the picture might
> have changed a fair bit

I think that we then have two distinct problems: 1) finding a solution for 2.4
that does not change userspace 2) finding a solution for 2.5/2.6 that is
Right.

Personally I'm not sure what 2.4 stands to gain from a redesign. While 2.4
is obviously developing, a stable series needs to solve real problems or
improve performance - I know the way major numbers are allocated right now
is ugly and doesn't scale very well. But is 2.4 the place to fix that?

So the question is: does this new policy hold for 2.4 as well and if so,
why.

Regards,

bert

--
http://www.PowerDNS.com Versatile DNS Services
Trilab The Technology People
'SYN! .. SYN|ACK! .. ACK!' - the mating call of the internet
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:53    [W:0.137 / U:1.088 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site