Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 20:05:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 20:05:10 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:12552 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 20:05:08 -0500 Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:13:34 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Andrew Morton cc: Greg KH , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] register_blkdev In-Reply-To: <20030307170520.5e38c3c9.akpm@digeo.com> Message-ID: 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 Content-Length: 1307 Lines: 30 On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Some time back Linus expressed a preference for a 2^20 major / 2^12 minor split. Other way around. 12 bits for major, 20 bits for minor. Minor numbers tend to get used up more quickly, as shown by the current state of affairs, and also as trivially shown by things like pty-like virtual devices that pretty much scale arbitrarily with memory and users. I don't much care personally. I think the devil is in the details, and making sure we don't have legacy code that just knows about the fact that it can index a 256-entry array with the minor number. Also, I have to say that over time I've become convinced that it's just a painful mistake to mix up minor and major numbers, so it might well be sensible for people who actually care about them to always keep them separate. That would actually imply that 32+32 is the right thing to do internally after all, and any other limits (whether they be 8+8, 12+20 or 16+16) would be limited by things like over-the-wire or on-the-disk representations. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/