Linus Torvalds: What I'm saying is: "No more S***!"May 15, 2001, 13:57 (73 Talkback[s])
(Other stories by Linus Torvalds)
By way of context, the issue this mail centers around is Linus' announcement of a moratorium on major device numbers. A mail from Peter Anvin explained that Linus hopes a "new and better method for device space handling will emerge as a result" of the short term chaos this may induce. Whether you care to delve into the details of kernel development or not, however, the comment that bears consideration is: "When Microsoft defines darkness to be standard, we laugh at them. When we do it, Alan Cox stands up for it and claims that it's the best thing since sliced bread. Double standards, anybody?"
Subject: Re: LANANA: Getting out of hand?
Actually, it does. It's just that some people have gotten so blinded by my a** that they can no longer see it any more ;)
The problem I have is that there are lots of _good_ solutions, but they all imply a bit more work than the bad ones.
What does that result in? Everybody continues to use the simple old setup, which required no thought at all, but that is a pain to maintain.
For example, the only thing you need in order to boot is to have a nice clean "disk" major number. That's it. Nothing fancy, nothing more.
Look at what we have now:
and then the small random ones.
NONE of these major numbers have _any_ redeeming qualities except for the ramdisk. They should all be _one_ major number, namely "disk". There are absolutely NO advantages to having separate devices for soem strange compaq controllers and IDE disks. There is _no_ point in having some SCSI disks show up at major 8, while others (who just happen to be attached to a scsi bus that is not driven by the generic SCSI layer) show up at major 104 or whatever.
And it will never ever get fixed, unless somebody says "No more!". Which I'm trying my best to say, except some people are so comfortable rolling around in the shit that they have re-defined shit to be the new standard.
When Microsoft defines darkness to be standard, we laugh at them. When we do it, Alan Cox stands up for it and claims that it's the best thing since sliced bread. Double standards, anybody?
What I'm saying is: "No more SHIT!". I'm more than happy to give out a new standard number for _disks_. I'm NOT AT ALL willing to say "Ok, Peter, go ahead and give the next braindamaged Compaq/RedHat/Xxxx engineer another random number so that we can dig ourselves deeper and deeper into this shithole that Alan and others like so much".
How hard is it to generate a new "disk driver framework", and
let people register themselves, kind of like the "misc" drivers do.
Except we'd only allow DISKS. You could add something like
and then the disk driver framework will select a range of minor numbers for the disks, and forward all requests that come to those minor numbers to "my_queue". No major numbers. No fixed minors. And the user sees _one_ disk major, and doesn't care _what_ the hell is behind it.
But no. When I tell people "enough is enough", people want to continue with the unbearably stupid and ugly thing we've always had, without realizing that the _real_ problem is not that we have too few major numbers, but the real problem is that people have mis-used the ones we _do_ have, and the fact that we have too few _minor_ numbers (which is easily fixable, and where 20 bits is plenty).