From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luca Berra Subject: Re: MDP major registration Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 07:52:32 +0100 Message-ID: <20080326065232.GA21970@percy.comedia.it> References: <47D90614.9040206@free.fr> <18408.36753.223347.129420@notabene.brown> <47E92EE2.1080108@free.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47E92EE2.1080108@free.fr> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 05:57:06PM +0100, Hubert Verstraete wrote: >Neil Brown wrote: >>On Thursday March 13, hubskml@free.fr wrote: >>>Neil, >>> >>>What is the status of the major for the partitionable arrays ? >> >>automatically determined at runtime. >> >>>I see that it is 254, which is in the experimental section, according to >>>the official Linux device list (http://www.lanana.org/docs/device-list/). >>>Will there be an official registration ? >> >>No. Is there any need? > >I got this question in mind when I saw that mkfs.xfs source code was >referring to the MD major to tune its parameters on an MD device, while >it ignores MDP devices. >If there were reasons to register MD, wouldn't they apply to MDP too ? i don't think so: bluca@percy ~ $ grep mdp /proc/devices 253 mdp L. -- Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it Communication Media & Services S.r.l. /"\ \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN X AGAINST HTML MAIL / \