From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 14 May 2001 12:53:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 14 May 2001 12:53:17 -0400 Received: from hera.cwi.nl ([192.16.191.8]:21447 "EHLO hera.cwi.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 14 May 2001 12:53:10 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 18:53:05 +0200 (MET DST) From: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl Message-Id: To: R.E.Wolff@bitwizard.nl, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: Re: Minor numbers Cc: aqchen@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@transmeta.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>> 20:12 is more common >> Which is major, which is minor? > 20bit major That is not more common. Around us we see major:minor splits 8:24, 12:20, 14:18. If we want to use NFSv3 and communicate with all these systems we would do wise to use 32:32. [Reminds me of a discussion that ended unfinished. Stage 1: "64 bits? Never in hell!" Answer 1: These 64 bits do not make the kernel slow. Indeed, the kernel uses a 32-bit pointer. Stage 2: "but I am on a holy crusade" Answer 2: These bits are not about bloat but about the width of the communication channel between user space and filesystem. Stage 3: Wonder whether Linus still objects. Let me cc him.] Andries