Messages in this thread | | | From | (Harald Koenig) | Subject | Re: possible SCSI device numbering solution | Date | Tue, 25 Jun 1996 10:11:07 +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 ;-)
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 ^^^^^ ^^^^^
| |