Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763135AbZLPWwP (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:52:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1763115AbZLPWwJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:52:09 -0500 Received: from liberdade.minaslivre.org ([72.232.254.139]:53173 "EHLO liberdade.minaslivre.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1763107AbZLPWwC (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:52:02 -0500 Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:51:50 -0200 From: cascardo@holoscopio.com To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rubini@gnudd.com, gregkh@suse.de Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] misc: use a proper range for minor number dynamic allocation Message-ID: <20091216225128.GA7791@holoscopio.com> References: <1257813017-28598-1-git-send-email-cascardo@holoscopio.com> <1257813017-28598-2-git-send-email-cascardo@holoscopio.com> <1257813017-28598-3-git-send-email-cascardo@holoscopio.com> <4AF8B4FF.9050405@zytor.com> <20091111153632.944a255c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20091215143446.8b6a7e57.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4B2810D6.9030309@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B2810D6.9030309@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1714 Lines: 43 On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 02:42:30PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 12/15/2009 02:34 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > >>>> > >>>> The proposed solution uses the not yet reserved range from 64 to 127. If > >>>> more devices are needed, we may push 64 to 16. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Again, why not push these up above 256? > >>> > >> > >> I merged this patch, but made a note-to-self that there are remaining > >> open issues.. > > > > And nothing else happened. Can we revisit this please? > > > > There seem to be people still worried about breaking userspace with > majors/minors >= 256. I'm starting to think it is time to actually > break userspace, and dynamic majors/minors seem as good as any place to > start, especially since they by definition has to be managed by > something like udev. We have had large dev_t for something like six > years now, and most pieces of software isn't affected at all -- only the > stuff that manages /dev. > > -hpa I see no problem in this. Can we make this configurable like the random minor for block devices was done? Or, perhaps, before making a decision, we can check what kind of devices are using misc dynamic minor, which was what I did before writing this patch to count the number of current in-tree users. I am currently downloading source code from git since I've lost my disk recently. That's why I'm late replying. I may send a list of current users if that's interesting for a better analysis. Regards, Cascardo. -- 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/