Re: 2.4.11 loses sda9

From: Alexander Viro (
Date: Thu Oct 11 2001 - 14:19:08 EST

On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 wrote:

> so as to make it easy to switch between compiles where
> a kdev_t is a number and we use the infamous arrays,
> and compiles where a kdev_t is a pointer to a device struct,
> and no arrays exist, I now see that get_hardsect_size(dev)
> is replaced by
> get_hardsect_size(to_kdev_t(bdev->bd_dev))
> . Yecch.
> Al, I never understood why you want to introduce a
> struct block_device * to do precisely what kdev_t
> was designed to do.]
We had been through that way too many times. You know what problems
with unified device struct I've brought before. You know what
problems I have with your 64bit dev_t. And you know _very_ well that
any patches in that area should be done in small steps.

Hell, I'd prefer that one to be done _much_ slower - with decent
debugging between the steps instead of "we've got to close the
holes opened by bdev-in-pagecache _NOW_" kind of situation we'd got.

IMO eventually we should have per-disk structure and keep reference to
it from struct block_device. Then get_hardsect_size() wiuld turn into
access to field of that beast (and would take struct block_device *
as an argument). But that's 2.5 stuff and I bloody refuse to participate
in attempts to do everything in one huge leap. One we'd got is already
bad enough.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 15 2001 - 21:00:40 EST