From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 15:24:03 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
Cc: logang@deltatee.com, axboe@kernel.dk, jlayton@poochiereds.net,
	bfields@fieldses.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Change in register_blkdev() behavior
Message-ID: <20180131142403.GB9233@kroah.com>
References: <a01cedbc-ca1a-3e3d-cf2c-3e995c63f793@csail.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a01cedbc-ca1a-3e3d-cf2c-3e995c63f793@csail.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.3 (2018-01-21)
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 04:56:32PM -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Before commit 133d55cdb2f "block: order /proc/devices by major number",
> if register_blkdev() was called with major = [1..UINT_MAX], it used to
> succeed (provided the requested major number was actually free).

How was LTP calling register_blkdev() with such crazy numbers?

Anyway, I agree with Logan, this sounds like something to be resolved in
LTP, as allowing block devices with numbers greater than the number we
really allow seems like an odd requirement :)

thanks,

greg k-h