Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 15 May 2001 11:09:40 +0200 | From | bert hubert <> | Subject | Re: 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/
|  |