[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47E96E15.7020105@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:26:45 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
CC: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>, Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>,
Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: What to do about the 2TB limit on HDIO_GETGEO ?
Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 01:36:51PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>>> Come on people, adding symlinks for device major:minor numbers in sysfs
>>>> to save a few 10s of lines of userspace code? Can things get sillier?
>>>>
>>>> You can add a single udev rule to probably build these in a tree in /dev
>>>> if you really need such a thing...
>>>>
>>>> And what's wrong with your new ioctl recomendation?
>>> Ah, there's some sanity. :)
>> It's not so much an issue of a few tens of lines of user space code, but
>> rather the fact that something that should be O(1) is currently O(n).
>
> "should"? why? Is this some new requirement that everyone needs? I've
> _never_ seen anyone ask for the ability to find sysfs devices by
> major:minor number in O(1) time. Is this somehow a place where such
> optimization is warranted?
Well, when dealing with shell scripts a O(n) very easily becomes O(n^2).
For the stuff that I, personally, do, it's not a big deal, but people
with large number of disks have serious gripes with our boot times.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists