On Thursday 10 April 2003 04:33 pm, Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote:
> From: Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@us.ibm.com>
>
> > Then we don't know which disks have disappeared. Pity.
> > If the number space is infinite then
> > index = next_index++;
> > gives a new number each time we need one.
>
> Yes !! I agree. I am not worried about running out them.
> I am more worried about names slipping. I atleast hope
> to see device names not changing by just doing
> rmmod/insmod.
>
> But you see, the present sd_index_bits[] gives no such
> guarantee. In sd_detach a bit is cleared, in sd_attach
> the first free bit is given out. There is no memory.
But the disks are probed in the same manner as last time
(if the disks/controllers are not moved, crashed etc..).
So we will end up getting same names.
Ofcourse, we need a device naming solution to fix
this for real.
Thanks,
Badari
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 15 2003 - 22:00:22 EST