From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: 2.6.0 stability and the BK scsi trees Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 13:31:29 +0100 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20031017133129.A27349@infradead.org> References: <1066265974.16761.426.camel@fuzzy> <3F8E8786.2020502@torque.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from pub234.cambridge.redhat.com ([213.86.99.234]:44807 "EHLO phoenix.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263430AbTJQMbf (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Oct 2003 08:31:35 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F8E8786.2020502@torque.net>; from dougg@torque.net on Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 09:56:54PM +1000 List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Douglas Gilbert Cc: James Bottomley , SCSI Mailing List On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 09:56:54PM +1000, Douglas Gilbert wrote: > What was the point of putting 32 dev_t's into the > kernel? Many people who were advocating it used > the increased number of scsi disks (> 256) and > partitions (from 15 to 63 [to match the ide subsystem]) > as a major reason. > > The sd driver is still littered with hacks to distribute > its 256 (max) disks over 8 majors. Shouldn't this be > fixed? > > Comments? I agree with you that there's some late features that need to be addresses, and the larger dev_t probably is number one on that list. But with Linus' policy having two trees is the best thing James can do.