Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:46:17 -0600 | From | Oliver Xymoron <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] register_blkdev |
| |
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 03:09:37PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > On Sat, 2003-03-08 at 01:13, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > > Some time back Linus expressed a preference for a 2^20 major / 2^12 minor split. > > > > Other way around. 12 bits for major, 20 bits for minor. > > > > Minor numbers tend to get used up more quickly, as shown by the current > > state of affairs, and also as trivially shown by things like pty-like > > virtual devices that pretty much scale arbitrarily with memory and users. > > 20:12 is easier for the current behaviour. 12:20 with the ability to hand out > sections of space has great potential for lumping things like "disks", > "serial ports" and so on together in more logical ways. 12:20 also makes the > compatibility logic easier since all of the legacy space falls in "major 0" > which becomes the remangler. > > Is there any reason for not using CIDR like schemes as Al Viro proposed a long > time back (I think it was Al anyway). That also sorts out the auditing problem
I think it was actually me, arguing with Viro. I was building a device number registration layer on top of the new resource tree structure at the time (now 3 years ago!). And in retrospect, I think 32:32 internally with an 8:8 legacy mangler is probably the sanest way to go.
-- "Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.." - 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/
| |