From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
Subject: [Cluster-devel] Re: [PATCH] misc: use a proper range for minor number dynamic allocation
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:28:36 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091109132836.6cf7f559.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1256340497-19320-1-git-send-email-cascardo@holoscopio.com>
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:28:17 -0200
Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@holoscopio.com> wrote:
> The current dynamic allocation of minor number for misc devices has some
> drawbacks.
>
> First of all, the range for dynamic numbers include some statically
> allocated numbers. It goes from 63 to 0, and we have numbers in the
> range from 1 to 15 already allocated. Although, it gives priority to the
> higher and not allocated numbers, we may end up in a situation where we
> must reject registering a driver which got a static number because a
> driver got its number with dynamic allocation. Considering fs/dlm/user.c
> allocates as many misc devices as lockspaces are created, and that we
> have more than 50 users around, it's not unreasonable to reach that
> situation.
What is this DLM behaviour of which you speak? It sounds broken.
> The proposed solution uses the not yet reserved range from 64 to 127. If
> more devices are needed, we may push 64 to 16. Moreover, if we don't
> need to give priority to the higher numbers anymore, we can start using
> the bitmap/bitops functions.
So... misc minors 64 to 127 are presently unused?
> Finally, if there's a failure creating the device (because there's
> already one with the same name, for example), the current implementation
> does not clear the bit for the allocated minor and that number is lost
> for future allocations.
>
Is that a bugfix for the existing code?
If so, please split that out into a separate patch which we can review
and apply promptly while we consider the broader problem which you've
identified.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@holoscopio.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, device@lanana.org,
rubini@vision.unipv.it, gregkh@suse.de, cluster-devel@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] misc: use a proper range for minor number dynamic allocation
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:28:36 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091109132836.6cf7f559.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1256340497-19320-1-git-send-email-cascardo@holoscopio.com>
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:28:17 -0200
Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@holoscopio.com> wrote:
> The current dynamic allocation of minor number for misc devices has some
> drawbacks.
>
> First of all, the range for dynamic numbers include some statically
> allocated numbers. It goes from 63 to 0, and we have numbers in the
> range from 1 to 15 already allocated. Although, it gives priority to the
> higher and not allocated numbers, we may end up in a situation where we
> must reject registering a driver which got a static number because a
> driver got its number with dynamic allocation. Considering fs/dlm/user.c
> allocates as many misc devices as lockspaces are created, and that we
> have more than 50 users around, it's not unreasonable to reach that
> situation.
What is this DLM behaviour of which you speak? It sounds broken.
> The proposed solution uses the not yet reserved range from 64 to 127. If
> more devices are needed, we may push 64 to 16. Moreover, if we don't
> need to give priority to the higher numbers anymore, we can start using
> the bitmap/bitops functions.
So... misc minors 64 to 127 are presently unused?
> Finally, if there's a failure creating the device (because there's
> already one with the same name, for example), the current implementation
> does not clear the bit for the allocated minor and that number is lost
> for future allocations.
>
Is that a bugfix for the existing code?
If so, please split that out into a separate patch which we can review
and apply promptly while we consider the broader problem which you've
identified.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-11-09 21:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-23 23:28 [PATCH] misc: use a proper range for minor number dynamic allocation Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo
2009-11-03 12:05 ` Alessandro Rubini
2009-11-09 21:28 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2009-11-09 21:28 ` Andrew Morton
2009-11-09 21:32 ` [Cluster-devel] " H. Peter Anvin
2009-11-09 21:32 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-11-09 22:02 ` Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo
2009-11-09 23:29 ` Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo
2009-11-09 23:40 ` [Cluster-devel] " Andrew Morton
2009-11-09 23:40 ` Andrew Morton
2009-11-10 11:09 ` [Cluster-devel] " Alan Cox
2009-11-10 11:09 ` Alan Cox
2009-11-10 17:15 ` Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo
2009-11-09 23:03 ` [Cluster-devel] " David Teigland
2009-11-09 23:03 ` David Teigland
2009-11-10 11:10 ` Steven Whitehouse
2009-11-10 11:10 ` Steven Whitehouse
2009-11-10 11:16 ` Alan Cox
2009-11-10 11:16 ` Alan Cox
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20091109132836.6cf7f559.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.