Re: [Patch] Cleanup struct gendisk registration, 2.3.40-pre1

From: Eric Youngdale (eric@andante.org)
Date: Sun Jan 16 2000 - 00:11:06 EST


    I looked through the thread on linux-kernel (I can browse via the web,
but the entire thread isn't there yet, because the stuff below is a
non-sequitor in relation to what is there now). Someone is going to have to
help me get caught up on the thread, as it will be hard for me to say
anything intelligent until I know what we are talking about :-). Are we
really talking about something for 2.4, or has this thread evolved into
planning for 2.5?

    For what it is worth, those damned per-major tables are the major thing
that is keeping me from eliminating those compiled in SD_EXTRA_DEVS limits
that keep people from loading an arbitrary number of additional devices via
modules. I was toying with the idea of essentially encapsulating access to
these tables behind some lightweight API functions that would use
appropriate locking so that these tables could be grown whenever needed.
Once all of the direct usages of the data structures is encapsulated, then
changing the underlying data structures to something more sane (instead of
tables indexed by major) would be a breeze, relatively speaking.
I wasn't planning on doing anything at all with this until 2.5, however.

-Eric

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Viro" <aviro@redhat.com>
To: "Andre Hedrick" <andre@suse.com>
Cc: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@transmeta.com>; "Alan Cox"
<alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>; "Alexander Viro" <aviro@redhat.com>; "Guest
section DW" <dwguest@win.tue.nl>; "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>;
<linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu>; "Ben LaHaise" <bcrl@redhat.com>; "Alan Cox"
<number6@the-village.bc.nu>; "Eric Youngdale" <eric@andante.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2000 9:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Patch] Cleanup struct gendisk registration, 2.3.40-pre1

>
>
>
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2000, Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> >
> > On Sat, 15 Jan 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, 16 Jan 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'd much rather this redoing of stuff didnt expand further. The job
list
> > > > is growing not shrinking right now. Its making me jumpy at least.
> > >
> > > I'm definitely nervous about growing changes, but at the same time I'd
> > > hate to say "no" to a pending cleanup of an area that really is a bit
too
> > > tangled, and where a lot of the issues are just shrouded in mystery
and
> > > years of historical reasons..
> >
> > Eric,
> >
> > Welcome to the party......
> >
> > It looks like it is time to clean house on this issue.
> > I am in, to resolve and contribute for IDE. You name came up before in
> > another discussion about SCSI I had the other day.
> >
> > I suggested Linux consider the move to a default packet global block
> > device layer and both SCSI and IDE plug into it.
> >
> > I checked with T13 and possed the question of moving all of ATA to
ATAPI,
> > the vice chairman explained to me that the translation lay would be to
> > thick and involved..........I am game to prove them wrong.........
> >
> > Your thoughts to merge the two major block subsystems into one...
>
> Ouch... Guys, before it will get us too far - let's decide on isolation of
> _both_ IDE and SCSI from VFS (along with the rest of block devices). Then
> it will become much more edible...
>

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 23 2000 - 21:00:13 EST