From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [patch for playing] Patch to support 4000 disks and maintain backward compatibility Date: 11 Apr 2003 14:12:18 -0500 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1050088340.1750.205.camel@mulgrave> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from nat9.steeleye.com ([65.114.3.137]:56326 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261488AbTDKTAs (for ); Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:00:48 -0400 In-Reply-To: List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl Cc: Linux Kernel , SCSI Mailing List , pbadari@us.ibm.com On Fri, 2003-04-11 at 13:07, Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote: > It is just that Badari and I were talking about the numbering scheme > index = next_index++ and he pointed out that the current system > has a certain weak number preservation guarantee that this > index = next_index++ does not have. True. Yes. I was just pointing out this was a byproduct of our compaction requirement in 8:8, not necessarily a guarantee I think needs preserving. > It is me who wants compatibility as far as 8+8 device numbers are > concerned, while I can see lots of ways to use new number space. This, I'm not too sure about. I see the value to kernel developers who boot between different versions of the kernel, but I think when 2.6 goes live and ships to end users, it's better not to have such numeric equivalency crufting up the SCSI interfaces. James