From: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk
To: Daniel Pittman <daniel@rimspace.net>
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFCI] How best to partition MD/raid devices in 2.6
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 06:10:45 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20031114061045.GJ24159@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87smkrecyw.fsf@enki.rimspace.net>
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 04:27:51PM +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> How about assigning the partition space above
>
> 9,0 => md0
> 9,1 => md1
> ...
> 9,257 => md0p1
> 9,258 => md0p2
> ...
> 9,320 => md1p1
>
> That should be sensibly backward compatible, I think, and still allow
> all the MD devices to be partitioned.
Kernel should be mostly OK with partitions having device numbers far from
that of entire disk. However, mostly != entirely and I can't tell right
now what amount of work would that take. One obvious problem is boot-time
stuff - code parses root= and its ilk does so by digging in sysfs and that
definitely will need changes. There might be more. I'm more or less sure
than all common codepaths are clean and will be OK with having probe do
whatever it wants, but I wouldn't bet a dime on the ioctl side/procfs/sysfs/
devfs.
I would *really* expect breakage in userland, though, and that might be a
killer. Up until now, we had all partitions getting device numbers in a range
that included entire disk and did not include any device numbers of anything
unrelated.
Folks, we are in 2.6.0-test freeze. Neil's #3 fits entirely in md.c, is small
and has minimal damage potential for userland code. Playing games with the
scheme above, nice as it might be, is *not* safe for now and it's not even
safe for 2.6.early.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-11-14 6:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-11-14 3:11 Neil Brown
2003-11-14 5:09 ` viro
2003-11-14 5:32 ` Neil Brown
2003-11-14 5:21 ` Daniel Gryniewicz
2003-11-14 5:30 ` Neil Brown
2003-11-14 10:16 ` Lars Marowsky-Bree
2003-11-14 18:29 ` Jeff Garzik
2003-11-14 21:44 ` Matt Domsch
2003-11-14 22:45 ` viro
2003-11-17 0:46 ` Automatic Write Reallocation Enable, question? Guy
2003-11-14 5:27 ` [RFCI] How best to partition MD/raid devices in 2.6 Daniel Pittman
2003-11-14 6:10 ` viro [this message]
2003-11-14 7:39 ` Luca Berra
2003-11-14 8:04 ` Paul Jakma
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20031114061045.GJ24159@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk \
--to=viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk \
--cc=daniel@rimspace.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome