[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b040c32a0705210937x3d1b8ac6wb9c8089337f5c683@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 09:37:26 -0700
From: "Ken Chen" <kenchen@...gle.com>
To: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Kay Sievers" <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
"Ray Lee" <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>,
"Al Viro" <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
"Andrey Borzenkov" <arvidjaar@...l.ru>,
"Uwe Bugla" <uwe.bugla@....de>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Michal Piotrowski" <michal.k.k.piotrowski@...il.com>
Subject: Re: bug in 2.6.22-rc2: loop mount limited to one single iso image
On 5/21/07, Ken Chen <kenchen@...gle.com> wrote:
> yes and no. in that commit, I automatically create n+1 device when
> loop device n is created, allergically was tested to be fine with
> casual usage of "losetup" and "mount -o loop". However, there is a
> bug in that commit when loop.c was compiled as a module. And when Al
> fixed it, he also removed that magic "n+1" trick.
>
> Nevertheless, yes, I'm guilty of introducing the new behavior.
The easiest way is to reinstate max_loop and create "max_loop" device
up front at module load time. However, that will lose all the "fancy
on-demand device instantiation feature".
So I propose we do the following:
1. have the module honor "max_loop" parameter and create that many
device upfront on module load (max_loop will also be a hard max) iff
user specify the parameter.
2. if max_loop is not specified, default create 8 loop device. User
can extent more loop device by create device node themselves and have
kernel automatically instantiate loop device on-demand.
Is this acceptable? Patch in a bit.
-
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