From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick Mansfield Subject: Re: 2.6.0 stability and the BK scsi trees Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 08:24:50 -0700 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20031018082450.A6510@beaverton.ibm.com> References: <1066265974.16761.426.camel@fuzzy> <3F8E8786.2020502@torque.net> <20031016132804.GA18370@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.130]:55024 "EHLO e32.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261664AbTJRP0A (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:26:00 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031016132804.GA18370@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>; from willy@debian.org on Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 02:28:04PM +0100 List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Douglas Gilbert , James Bottomley , SCSI Mailing List , pbadari@us.ibm.com On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 02:28:04PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > 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? > > Well, let's see some fixes and then decide whether it's worth merging > before 2.6.0 or after 2.6.0. We can be sure that vendors will integrate > this patch even if it's not in mainline kernel.org ... and i'd rather > see one variant of the patch which everybody uses than a different one > in RH, SuSE and Linux 2.7. If you have not seen it, Badari's sd patch is in the mm tree: ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.0-test7/2.6.0-test7-mm1/broken-out/support-zillions-of-scsi-disks.patch -- Patrick Mansfield