On 01/02/18 07:17 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> Thank you for confirming! I'll send a patch to fix that (and the analogous
> case for CHRDEV_MAJOR_DYN_EXT_END).
Great! Thanks!
>>>
>>> for (cd = chrdevs[major_to_index(i)]; cd; cd = cd->next)
>>> if
On 01/02/18 07:17 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> Thank you for confirming! I'll send a patch to fix that (and the analogous
> case for CHRDEV_MAJOR_DYN_EXT_END).
Great! Thanks!
>>>
>>> for (cd = chrdevs[major_to_index(i)]; cd; cd = cd->next)
>>> if
On 2/1/18 5:10 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
> On 01/02/18 05:23 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> static int find_dynamic_major(void)
>> {
>> int i;
>> struct char_device_struct *cd;
>>
>> for (i = ARRAY_SIZE(chrdevs)-1; i > CHRDEV_MAJOR_DYN_END; i--) {
>>
On 2/1/18 5:10 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
> On 01/02/18 05:23 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> static int find_dynamic_major(void)
>> {
>> int i;
>> struct char_device_struct *cd;
>>
>> for (i = ARRAY_SIZE(chrdevs)-1; i > CHRDEV_MAJOR_DYN_END; i--) {
>>
On 01/02/18 05:23 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
static int find_dynamic_major(void)
{
int i;
struct char_device_struct *cd;
for (i = ARRAY_SIZE(chrdevs)-1; i > CHRDEV_MAJOR_DYN_END; i--) {
As far as I can see, _DYN_END is
On 01/02/18 05:23 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
static int find_dynamic_major(void)
{
int i;
struct char_device_struct *cd;
for (i = ARRAY_SIZE(chrdevs)-1; i > CHRDEV_MAJOR_DYN_END; i--) {
As far as I can see, _DYN_END is
On 1/31/18 6:24 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 04:56:32PM -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Before commit 133d55cdb2f "block: order /proc/devices by major number",
>> if register_blkdev() was called with major = [1..UINT_MAX], it used to
>> succeed (provided the
On 1/31/18 6:24 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 04:56:32PM -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Before commit 133d55cdb2f "block: order /proc/devices by major number",
>> if register_blkdev() was called with major = [1..UINT_MAX], it used to
>> succeed (provided the
Hi Logan,
On 1/30/18 5:26 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
> On 30/01/18 05:56 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> If the restriction on the major number was intentional, perhaps we
>> should get the LTP testcase modified for kernel versions >= 4.14.
>> Otherwise, we should fix register_blkdev to
Hi Logan,
On 1/30/18 5:26 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
> On 30/01/18 05:56 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> If the restriction on the major number was intentional, perhaps we
>> should get the LTP testcase modified for kernel versions >= 4.14.
>> Otherwise, we should fix register_blkdev to
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 04:56:32PM -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Before commit 133d55cdb2f "block: order /proc/devices by major number",
> if register_blkdev() was called with major = [1..UINT_MAX], it used to
> succeed (provided the requested major number was actually free).
How
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 04:56:32PM -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Before commit 133d55cdb2f "block: order /proc/devices by major number",
> if register_blkdev() was called with major = [1..UINT_MAX], it used to
> succeed (provided the requested major number was actually free).
How
On 30/01/18 05:56 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
If the restriction on the major number was intentional, perhaps we
should get the LTP testcase modified for kernel versions >= 4.14.
Otherwise, we should fix register_blkdev to preserve the old behavior.
(I guess the same thing applies to commit
On 30/01/18 05:56 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
If the restriction on the major number was intentional, perhaps we
should get the LTP testcase modified for kernel versions >= 4.14.
Otherwise, we should fix register_blkdev to preserve the old behavior.
(I guess the same thing applies to commit
14 matches
Mail list logo
