From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Badari Pulavarty Subject: Re: 2.6.0 stability and the BK scsi trees Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 07:54:21 -0700 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <200310200754.21984.pbadari@us.ibm.com> References: <1066265974.16761.426.camel@fuzzy> <20031018082450.A6510@beaverton.ibm.com> <20031018163820.GC18370@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.106]:56005 "EHLO e6.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262593AbTJTO6A convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Oct 2003 10:58:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20031018163820.GC18370@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Patrick Mansfield Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Douglas Gilbert , James Bottomley , SCSI Mailing List On Saturday 18 October 2003 09:38 am, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 08:24:50AM -0700, Patrick Mansfield wrote: > > 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 > > I hadn't ... it doesn't address expanding the number of partitions or > the problem that the sd_index_bits array will grow to a huge size. Yes. I did not want to address expanding the number of partitions issue - since there is no resolution on it. (to be frank, I am not really interested in it - so never looked at). I address sd_index_bits array problem in a crude way. I made the max number of disks to support as configurable. I wanted to make the patch really simple - so that we can make few decisions before making too many changes. All I wanted to do was following: - support > 256 scsi disks - for now, maintain backward compatibility with current /dev major/minor assignments - test out any kernel (lowmem bloating) issues. Thanks, Badari