From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] virtio_blk: use disk_name_format() to support mass of disks naming Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:26:06 -0700 Message-ID: <20120330152606.GB28934@google.com> References: <4F7581D4.4040301@cn.fujitsu.com> <4F7582B0.5010609@cn.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jens Axboe , SCSI , KVM , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , LKML , VIRTUAL To: Ren Mingxin Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F7582B0.5010609@cn.fujitsu.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 05:53:52PM +0800, Ren Mingxin wrote: > The current virtblk's naming algorithm only supports 263 disks. > If there are mass of virtblks(exceeding 263), there will be disks > with the same name. > > By renaming "sd_format_disk_name()" to "disk_name_format()" > and moving it into block core, virtio_blk can use this function to > support mass of disks. > > Signed-off-by: Ren Mingxin I guess it's already way too late but why couldn't they have been named vdD-P where both D and P are integers denoting disk number and partition number? [sh]dX's were created when there weren't supposed to be too many disks, so we had to come up with the horrible alphabet based numbering scheme but vd is new enough. I mean, naming is one thing but who wants to figure out which sequence is or guess what comes next vdzz9? :( If we're gonna move it to block layer, let's add big blinking red comment saying "don't ever use it for any new driver". Thanks. -- tejun