From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266914AbUGLSQM (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:16:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266906AbUGLSQM (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:16:12 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:18606 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266914AbUGLSP6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:15:58 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 11:14:45 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Kevin Corry Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jim.houston@comcast.net, dm-devel@redhat.com, torvalds@osdl.org, agk@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] 1/1: Device-Mapper: Remove 1024 devices limitation Message-Id: <20040712111445.374bf579.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <200407120949.03928.kevcorry@us.ibm.com> References: <200407011035.13283.kevcorry@us.ibm.com> <1089197914.986.17.camel@new.localdomain> <20040707041059.17287591.akpm@osdl.org> <200407120949.03928.kevcorry@us.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Kevin Corry wrote: > > On Wednesday 07 July 2004 6:10 am, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Jim Houston wrote: > > > > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > > > It's not quite right. If you want to keep a count in the upper bits > > > you have to mask off that count before checking if the id is beyond the > > > end of the allocated space. > > > > OK, I'll fix that up. > > > > But I don't want to keep a count in the upper bits! I want rid of that > > stuff altogether, completely, all of it. It just keeps on hanging around > > :( > > > > We should remove MAX_ID_* from the kernel altogether. > > Just following up on the proposed IDR changes. Based on the patches in the > latest -mm tree, I'm assuming there is or will be a fix for IDR so it will > always return NULL when asked to find an id that's not currently allocated. > Is this correct? If so, I can drop the second "dm-use-idr" patch (from July > 6, 2004) and keep the one that's currently in -mm. > Yes, I'm assuming that the code in Linus's tree at present is acceptable, and I'll take another look at the idr code post-2.6.8.