From: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
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 17:03:11 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091109230311.GA820@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091109132836.6cf7f559.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 01:28:36PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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.
One for each userland lockspace, I know of three userland apps using dlm:
1. rgmanager which is at the end of its life
2. clvmd which is switching to a different lock manager
3. ocfs2 tools, where the userland portion is transient; it only exists
while the tool executes.
That said, it shouldn't be a problem to switch to a single device in the
next version of the interface.
Dave
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@holoscopio.com>,
cluster-devel@redhat.com, device@lanana.org, gregkh@suse.de,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rubini@vision.unipv.it
Subject: Re: [Cluster-devel] Re: [PATCH] misc: use a proper range for minor number dynamic allocation
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:03:11 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091109230311.GA820@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091109132836.6cf7f559.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 01:28:36PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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.
One for each userland lockspace, I know of three userland apps using dlm:
1. rgmanager which is at the end of its life
2. clvmd which is switching to a different lock manager
3. ocfs2 tools, where the userland portion is transient; it only exists
while the tool executes.
That said, it shouldn't be a problem to switch to a single device in the
next version of the interface.
Dave
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-11-09 23:03 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 ` [Cluster-devel] " Andrew Morton
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 ` David Teigland [this message]
2009-11-09 23:03 ` [Cluster-devel] " 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=20091109230311.GA820@redhat.com \
--to=teigland@redhat.com \
/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.