From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Kleikamp Subject: Re: [PATCH] [SCSI] remove arbitrary SD_MAX_DISKS namespace limit Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 13:29:24 -0500 Message-ID: <4E89FF04.4040208@oracle.com> References: <4E89E721.7000308@oracle.com> <1317664679.3041.48.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com ([148.87.113.117]:39473 "EHLO rcsinet15.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932264Ab1JCS3f (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Oct 2011 14:29:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1317664679.3041.48.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On 10/03/2011 12:57 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2011-10-03 at 11:47 -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote: >> I see no reason to limit the SCSI disk namespace to sdXXX. We test >> systems with more than 18278 LUNs. > > I suppose we kept the old limit for historical reasons, so I've no real > objection to raising it, except the error messages now need to be beefed > up. We need one for the ida_get_new() failure and the original > exhaustion messages needs to move to the sd_format_disk_name() check ... > that's now what checks we don't go over the possible size in > DISK_NAME_LEN (I know at 32 it's way beyond INT_MAX ... but just in case > someone decides to lower it) ... probably it's the same error message > (but better make it unique for the static checkers). I'll defer to your judgment on how to fix this. I didn't look at your git tree, just mainline. Just bumping up SD_MAX_DISKS is sufficient. Wrapping the calculation in another (( ...) + 1) * 26 should get us through another decade, I would think. :-) Or any reasonably high number. INT_MAX? Thanks, Shaggy