Re: MDP major registration

[Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>]

Luca Berra wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 05:57:06PM +0100, Hubert Verstraete wrote:
> > Neil Brown wrote:
> > > On Thursday March 13, hubskml@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > Neil,
> > > >
> > > > What is the status of the major for the partitionable arrays ?
> > >
> > > automatically determined at runtime.
> > >
> > > > I see that it is 254, which is in the experimental section, 
> > > > according to the official Linux device list 
> > > > (http://www.lanana.org/docs/device-list/).
> > > > Will there be an official registration ?
> > >
> > > No. Is there any need?
> >
> > I got this question in mind when I saw that mkfs.xfs source code was 
> > referring to the MD major to tune its parameters on an MD device, 
> > while it ignores MDP devices.
> > If there were reasons to register MD, wouldn't they apply to MDP too ?
>
> i don't think so:
> bluca@percy ~ $ grep mdp /proc/devices
> 253 mdp

Why is it important to have XFS tune its parameters for md and not for 
mdp? I don't understand your conclusion here, is tuning not needed for 
mdp, or so meaningless that it doesn't matter, or that XFS code reads 
/proc/devices, or ??? I note that device-mapper also has a dynamic 
major, what does XFS make of that?

I don't know how much difference tuning makes, but if it's worth doing 
at all, it should be done for mdp as well, I would think.

--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
 "Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still
 be valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark 


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html