Re: 64-bit kdev_t - just for playing

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Followup to:  <UTC200303270109.h2R19ME28410.aeb@smtp.cwi.nl>
By author:    Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> >> Maybe I should send another patch tonight, just for playing.
> 
> > Please, I'd like that.
> 
> Below a random version of kdev_t.h.
> (The file is smaller than the patch.)
> 
> kdev_t is the kernel-internal representation
> dev_t is the kernel idea of the user space representation
> (of course glibc uses 64 bits, split up as 8+8 :-)
> 
> kdev_t can be equal to dev_t.
> 
> The file below completely randomly makes kdev_t
> 64 bits, split up 32+32, and dev_t 32 bits, split up 12+20.
> 

I have a few brief questions:

a) Along all of these you have assumed that it's more efficient to
have a separate type (kdev_t) for kernel-internal "decoded" device number
handling, as opposed to "encoded" device number handling.  At some
point, however, it ends up being a struct char_dev * or struct
block_dev *.  How big is this gap and does it really make sense
introducing a special type for it?

b) If we do have such a type, would it make more sense to have cdev_t
and bdev_t, and have per-type distinction of block- versus charness?

c) If we do have such a type, any reason to have it be a "unsigned
long long" (really should be u64), instead of "u32 major; u32 minor;"?

	-hpa
-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
Architectures needed: ia64 m68k mips64 ppc ppc64 s390 s390x sh v850 x86-64