Re: possible SCSI device numbering solution

Bryn Paul Arnold Jones (bpaj@gytha.demon.co.uk)
Mon, 24 Jun 1996 14:02:35 +0100 (BST)

On 23 Jun 1996, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>=20
> They probably would. However, just solving the SCSI issue doesn't
> deal with the overall problem of device number exhaustion. For SCSI
> disks, for example, 15 partitions really isn't enough. 256 pty's
> isn't really enough. We really do need at least a 32-bit dev_t.
>=20
> -hpa

There is little point going through the disruption that changing it wou=
ld=20
be, to change it again, so we may as well go to a 64 bit dev_t. One=20
thing tho, would we even need more than 65536 major devices? ie 16 bit=20
major, 48 bit minor (or 281474976710656 minor numbers (2.8*10^14) ;)
Bryn
> --=20
> PGP public key available - finger hpa@zytor.com
> I don't work for Yggdrasil, but they sponsor the linux.* hierarchy.
> "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Bah=E1=
'u'll=E1h
> Just Say No to Morden * Save Babylon 5: http://www.babylon5.com/cmp/s=
upport/
>=20

--
PGP key pass phrase forgotten,   \ Overload -- core meltdown sequence=20
again :(                          |            initiated.
                                 / This space is intentionally left  =20
                                |  blank, apart from this text ;-)
                                 \____________________________________