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

[James Bottomley]

On Fri, 2003-04-11 at 13:07, [e-mail] wrote:
> It is just that Badari and I were talking about the numbering scheme
> index = next_index++ and he pointed out that the current system
> has a certain weak number preservation guarantee that this
> index = next_index++ does not have. True.

Yes. I was just pointing out this was a byproduct of our compaction
requirement in 8:8, not necessarily a guarantee I think needs
preserving.

> It is me who wants compatibility as far as 8+8 device numbers are
> concerned, while I can see lots of ways to use new number space.

This, I'm not too sure about.  I see the value to kernel developers who
boot between different versions of the kernel, but I think when 2.6 goes
live and ships to end users, it's better not to have such numeric
equivalency crufting up the SCSI interfaces.

James