From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262657AbTDIBOZ (for ); Tue, 8 Apr 2003 21:14:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262658AbTDIBOZ (for ); Tue, 8 Apr 2003 21:14:25 -0400 Received: from smtpzilla3.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.139]:6418 "EHLO smtpzilla3.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262657AbTDIBOT (for ); Tue, 8 Apr 2003 21:14:19 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 03:25:53 +0200 (CEST) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@serv To: Joel Becker cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Subject: Re: 64-bit kdev_t - just for playing In-Reply-To: <20030409010250.GZ31739@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> Message-ID: References: <20030408195305.F19288@almesberger.net> <20030409010250.GZ31739@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Joel Becker wrote: > 1) Ship 2.6 with 16bit dev_t, work on a larger dev_t and perfect dynamic > devices in 2.7. > 2) Ship 2.6 with a (32|64)bit dev_t, work on a perfect dynamic scheme in > 2.7. > 3) Hold 2.6 until it can ship with (32|64)bit dev_t and perfect dynamic > devices. > > Many folks, Peter and myself included, are claiming that choice > (1) is absolutely untenable. We need more device space today, not in 3 > years when 2.7 becomes 2.8. > If I understand you correctly (and here is why I mailed), you > feel that choice (2) is the worst of the choices. You feel that we > should either choose course (1) or course (3). I'm not sure which of > those you prefer. That misunderstanding is hopefully easy to resolve: (4) Ship 2.6 with a (32|64)bit dev_t with an experimental dynamic scheme and keep the device numbers below 0x10000 as they are now. bye, Roman