[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
[dm-devel] Re: [PATCH] 1/1: Device-Mapper: Remove 1024 devices limitation
- From: Andrew Morton <akpm osdl org>
- To: Kevin Corry <kevcorry us ibm com>
- Cc: torvalds osdl org, dm-devel redhat com, Jim Houston <jim houston comcast net>, linux-kernel vger kernel org, agk redhat com
- Subject: [dm-devel] Re: [PATCH] 1/1: Device-Mapper: Remove 1024 devices limitation
- Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 12:42:18 -0700
Kevin Corry <kevcorry us ibm com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, idr is the one to use. That linear search you have in there becomes
> > logarithmic. Will speed up the registration of 100,000 minors no end ;)
>
> I've got a patch that switches from a bit-set to an IDR structure. The only
> thing I'm slightly uncertain about is the case where we're trying to create
> a device with a specific minor number (when creating a DM device, you have
> the choice to specify a minor number or have DM find the first available
> one). To do this, I call idr_find() with the desired minor. If that returns
> NULL (meaning it's not already in use), then I call idr_get_new_above() with
> that same desired minor. In the cases I've tested, this always chooses the
> desired minor, but can we depend on that behavior?
Yes, that has to work - you're holding the lock throughout.
It would be sensible to make that a part of the idr API though.
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]