Re: [PATCH 3/3] misc: use a proper range for minor number dynamicallocation

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 02:42:30PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 12/15/2009 02:34 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The proposed solution uses the not yet reserved range from 64 to 127. If
> >>>> more devices are needed, we may push 64 to 16.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Again, why not push these up above 256?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I merged this patch, but made a note-to-self that there are remaining
> >> open issues..
> > 
> > And nothing else happened.  Can we revisit this please?
> > 
> 
> There seem to be people still worried about breaking userspace with
> majors/minors >= 256.  I'm starting to think it is time to actually
> break userspace, and dynamic majors/minors seem as good as any place to
> start, especially since they by definition has to be managed by
> something like udev.  We have had large dev_t for something like six
> years now, and most pieces of software isn't affected at all -- only the
> stuff that manages /dev.

No objection from me, as long as the patch actually works.

But you might want to provide a config option so that loons that still
are running Fedora 3 PPC machines who keep insisting on updating to the
latest kernel version still keep their machines limping along
successfully :)

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/