Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 24 Mar 2001 22:25:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 24 Mar 2001 22:25:33 -0500 Received: from neon-gw.transmeta.com ([209.10.217.66]:778 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 24 Mar 2001 22:25:29 -0500 Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 19:24:10 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: cc: , , , Subject: Re: Larger dev_t In-Reply-To: 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 On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote: > > We need a size, and I am strongly in favor of sizeof(dev_t) = 8; > this is already true in glibc. The fact that glibc is a quivering mass of bloat, and total and utter crap makes you suggest that the Linux kernel should try to be as similar as possible? Not a very strong argument. There is no way in HELL I will ever accept a 64-bit dev_t. I _will_ accept a 32-bit dev_t, with 12 bits for major numbers, and 20 bits for minor numbers. If people cannot fit their data in that size, they have some serious problems. And for people who think that you should have meaningful minor numbers where the bit patterns get split up some way, I can only say "get a frigging clue". That's what you have filesystem namespaces for. Don't try to make binary name-spaces. And I don't care one _whit_ about the fact that Ulrich Drepper thinks that it's a good idea to make things too large. 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/