Re: [patch for playing] Patch to support 4000 disks and maintain backward compatibility

[Badari Pulavarty]

On Friday 11 April 2003 07:33 am, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-04-11 at 06:42, [e-mail] wrote:
> >     Here is my problem..
> >
> >     #insmod ips.o
> >       < found 10 disks>
> >     #insmod qla2300.o
> >       < found 10 disks>
> >     #rmmod ips.o
> >        <removed 10 disks>
> >     #insmod ips.o
> >       <found 10 disks - but new names>
> >
> > OK, I see what you mean. I agree.
>
> Could you elaborate on the reason you want to keep the minor space
> compact?  I don't regard the insmod/rmmod problem as valid because if
> you do:
>
> rmmod ips.o
> rmmod qla2300.o
> insmod qla2300.o
> insmod ips.o
>
> All bets are off again. For small kernel dev_t it was essential to keep
> a compact minor space because otherwise we coulde run out of minors.
> Sparse minors cause no inefficiency in the mid-layer, or in sd.  There
> are problems in sg which could be solved by encoding the device type in
> the minor.

Here user/admin atleast knows what he is doing. So they have to deal
with it. (Proper device naming solution would be great here).

But just by doing rmmod/insmod if my device names change, it will
be a pain. For example, in my case, i have to re-do all my raw device
bindings to just start the database. This will be a problem with 
dynamic <major, minor> assignments also. (Again, i will need a proper
device naming solution here).

Thanks,
Badari