Re: possible SCSI device numbering solution

Carsten Paeth (calle@calle.in-berlin.de)
Thu, 27 Jun 1996 03:59:40 +0200 (MET DST)


>
> > > There is little point going through the disruption that changing it would
> > > be, to change it again, so we may as well go to a 64 bit dev_t. One
> > > thing tho, would we even need more than 65536 major devices? ie 16 bit
> > > major, 48 bit minor (or 281474976710656 minor numbers (2.8*10^14) ;)
> >
> > I'm reminded of somebody saying, "they'll never need more than 640k". :-/
> >
> > But anyhoot, 16/48 bit majors/minors seems reasonable to me.
> > Of course, this is a blind guess - we really should discuss how
> > majors/minors will be assigned and used first. We could easily gobble up
> > 128-bits with a poor system, or, improve the current one and stick with
> > 16-bits.
>
> any idea how the "ls -l" output should look like for larger dev_t ?
>
> crw-r----- 1 root kmem 1, 2 Aug 29 1992 /dev/kmem
> brw-rw---- 1 root root 65535, 281474976710655 Apr 1 2001 /dev/last_dev_16_48
> brw-rw---- 1 root root 4294967295, 4294967295 Apr 1 2001 /dev/last_dev_32_32
> brw-rw---- 1 root disk 8, 0 May 4 1994 /dev/sda
>
> doesn't look too nice ;-)

I think it should be in hex, as in HPUX which
has 32bit dev_t with 8bit major and 24bit minor.

>
> Harald
> --
> All SCSI disks will from now on ___ _____
> be required to send an email notice 0--,| /OOOOOOO\
> 24 hours prior to complete hardware failure! <_/ / /OOOOOOOOOOO\
> \ \/OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO\
> \ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|//
> Harald Koenig, \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
> Inst.f.Theoret.Astrophysik // / \\ \
> koenig@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de ^^^^^ ^^^^^
>

calle

-- 
calle@calle.in-berlin.de