Re: 64-bit kdev_t - just for playing

[Roman Zippel]

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