From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Pittman Subject: Re: [RFCI] How best to partition MD/raid devices in 2.6 Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:27:51 +1100 Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <87smkrecyw.fsf@enki.rimspace.net> References: <16308.18387.142415.469027@notabene.cse.unsw.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: <16308.18387.142415.469027@notabene.cse.unsw.edu.au> (Neil Brown's message of "Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:11:15 +1100") To: Neil Brown Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Neil Brown wrote: [...] > 3/ define minor numbers of block-major-9 that are larger than 255 to > have 6 bits of partitioning information. i.e. > 9,0 -> md0 > 9,1 -> md1 > ... > 9,255 -> md255 > 9,256 -> md256 > 9,257 -> md256p1 > 9,257 -> md256p2 > ... > 9,320 -> md257 > 9,321 -> md257p1 > ... > This has least impact on other system and is in some ways simplest, > but it has the problem of lack of uniformity. You wouldn't be able > to partition md0, but that isn't a big problem as long as you can > partition some md arrays. How about assigning the partition space above 9,0 => md0 9,1 => md1 ... 9,257 => md0p1 9,258 => md0p2 ... 9,320 => md1p1 That should be sensibly backward compatible, I think, and still allow all the MD devices to be partitioned. Daniel -- No, no, you're not thinking, you're just being logical. -- Niels Bohr