Re: Larger dev_t

[Martin Dalecki <dalecki@evision-ventures.com>]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote:
> >
> > We need a size, and I am strongly in favor of sizeof(dev_t) = 8;
> > this is already true in glibc.
> 
> The fact that glibc is a quivering mass of bloat, and total and utter crap
> makes you suggest that the Linux kernel should try to be as similar as
> possible?
> 
> Not a very strong argument.
> 
> There is no way in HELL I will ever accept a 64-bit dev_t.
> 
> I _will_ accept a 32-bit dev_t, with 12 bits for major numbers, and 20
> bits for minor numbers.
> 
> If people cannot fit their data in that size, they have some serious
> problems. And for people who think that you should have meaningful minor
> numbers where the bit patterns get split up some way, I can only say "get
> a frigging clue". That's what you have filesystem namespaces for. Don't
> try to make binary name-spaces.
> 
> And I don't care one _whit_ about the fact that Ulrich Drepper thinks that
> it's a good idea to make things too large.

Amen. It's entierly sufficent to take a size similiar to the one
on systems which don't have the problems linux has in this area.
Our daily motto should be: "Maybe we don't know a shit about
OS design - but we known very well up to the ground how Solaris works."

Please forgive me If I stressed your sense of humour a bit too much :-)