| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:32:14 +0200 From: Matthias Schniedermeyer <ms@...d.de> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: /dev/loop* devices not appearing in /dev (at least since 2.6.22-rc3*) markus reichelt wrote: > PS: Just wondering: Who came up with this "on-demand" hype? I don't remember the names, but i remember the root causes. Here we go: The discussion started when someone with a CD-Server ran out of loops as 256 was the "fixed" maximum. The other "root"-cause was that the data-structure for the loop-devices was fixed in size at load-time, so after you load the loop-module you couldn't change anything. From "increasing" the maximum to <don't remember, but wasn't that much better> the discussion went to dynamic allocation. Dynamic allocation has the added nicety that there is a bit less waste of resources, in case you don't need so many loops and that you can scale to a large number of loops if you need to. When all the bugs and usability problems are shaken out, everybody is happy, especially the members of the "i need massive amounts of loops"-fraction. So much for the background. Bis denn -- Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated, cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous. - 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