From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264058AbTDWPJF (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:09:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264073AbTDWPJF (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:09:05 -0400 Received: from smtp-out1.iol.cz ([194.228.2.86]:64921 "EHLO smtp-out1.iol.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264058AbTDWPJE (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:09:04 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 17:19:20 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Roman Zippel Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl, Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] kdevt-diff Message-ID: <20030423151919.GA3035@elf.ucw.cz> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > > Linus, if you still want to go for a single block device major, this patch > > > is bad idea (at least in this form). > > > > I disagree. > > Ok, here is a compromise proposal. I don't care very much about the MKDEV > macro and almost nobody else should care about it either. > My main concern with a larger dev_t is that people start to go wild and > waste the number range with crap. So what I'd like to see is some usage > policy, e.g. nobody should assume a certain dev_t size, so that it's still > possible to scale it down. If the user has only a small number of devices, > they should be addressable even with a 16 bit dev_t. What's the point? Its not like 8 bytes are that much... Your "number range" is essentially free, and its okay to waste it... Pavel -- When do you have a heart between your knees? [Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]