On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:17:13 -0400 Dave Dillow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 10:42 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:45:30 +0200 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > * Dave Dillow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Then it is a matter of figuring out why the device number changed -- > > > > > I'm thinking it is device-mapper, but will look closer tomorrow. > > > > > > > > This commit is the one that changed it: > > > > > > > > commit fdf892be32d84a1745fa0aee5fc60517421b8038 > > > > Author: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Date: Mon Feb 12 00:51:44 2007 -0800 > > > > > > > > [PATCH] register_blkdev(): don't hand out the LOCAL/EXPERIMENTAL > > > > majors > > > > > > > > As pointed out in http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7922, > > > > dynamic blockdev major allocation can hand out majors which LANANA > > > > has defined as being for local/experimental use. > > > > > > i dont think we should break backwards compatibility with a system that > > > has not changed any hardware. Andrew, should we revert this? > > > > Well that's an odd thing for a backup program to be doing - there are any > > number of things which could cause a dynamically-allocated major to change. > > > > ho hum, yes, I guess it needs to go. > > The thing is, it's been broken for a long time -- this change just > highlighted it. This isn't the first time that device-mapper has moved > -- the introduction of mdp (before git, so haven't tracked down > timeframe) also moved it around. The dynamic major is not stable, so > should we be concerned if it moves for 2.6.21? > > I don't like the effect it has on the backups, but I don't think we > should hand out LOCAL/EXP majors to dynamic devices, either. There is a > module option to make the device-mapper and mdp majors stable, so > perhaps a compromise is possible? Revert for 2.6.21, and schedule the > patch for later addition, which gives distros time to use the DM major > option? hm, good points. Overall, the patch helps kernel developers and hurts the userbase. I tend to prefer to hurt kernel developers than our users ;) I don't think the protect-lanana-numbers thing is very important, really. If some kernel developer or someone who is maintaining an unofficial out-of-tree driver hits the problem, they are presumably able to handle it. Preferably by switching to a dynamically-assigned major. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
