LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de>
To: Ken Chen <kenchen@google.com>
Cc: Tomas M <tomas@slax.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] remove artificial software max_loop limit
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 21:06:50 +0200 (MEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0704012106010.16977@yvahk01.tjqt.qr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b040c32a0704011110n639d6ea4h447646b6da92974e@mail.gmail.com>
On Apr 1 2007 11:10, Ken Chen wrote:
> On 4/1/07, Tomas M <tomas@slax.org> wrote:
>
>> I believe that IF you _really_ need to preserve the max_loop module
>> parameter, then the parameter should _not_ be ignored, rather it
>> should have the same function like before - to limit the loop driver
>> so if you use max_loop=10 for example, it should not allow loop.c to
>> create more than 10 loops.
>
> Blame on the dual meaning of max_loop that it uses currently: to
> initialize a set of loop devices and as a side effect, it also sets
> the upper limit. People are complaining about the former constrain,
> isn't it? Does anyone uses the 2nd meaning of upper limit?
Who cares if the user specifies max_loop=8 but still is able to open up
/dev/loop8, loop9, etc.? max_loop=X basically meant (at least to me)
"have at least X" loops ready.
Jan
--
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-04-01 19:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-03-30 7:53 Ken Chen
2007-03-30 8:48 ` Ken Chen
2007-03-30 9:07 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-03-30 9:25 ` Ken Chen
2007-03-30 16:16 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-03-30 21:15 ` Andrew Morton
2007-03-30 22:06 ` Ken Chen
2007-03-30 22:50 ` Andrew Morton
2007-03-31 17:07 ` Greg KH
2007-03-31 17:41 ` Andrew Morton
2007-04-01 4:16 ` Ken Chen
2007-04-04 10:31 ` Tomas M
2007-04-04 18:47 ` Andrew Morton
2007-04-01 16:53 ` Tomas M
2007-04-01 16:57 ` Tomas M
2007-04-01 18:10 ` Ken Chen
2007-04-01 19:06 ` Jan Engelhardt [this message]
2007-04-06 20:33 ` Bill Davidsen
2007-04-07 16:18 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2007-04-07 16:34 ` Bill Davidsen
2007-03-30 21:46 ` Andrew Morton
2007-03-30 21:52 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-04-01 9:16 devzero
2007-04-01 10:53 devzero
2007-04-01 18:03 ` Ken Chen
2007-04-01 19:00 ` Jeff Dike
2007-04-01 18:36 devzero
2007-04-01 18:43 ` Kyle Moffett
2007-04-01 18:54 devzero
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.61.0704012106010.16977@yvahk01.tjqt.qr \
--to=jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de \
--cc=kenchen@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tomas@slax.org \
--subject='Re: [patch] remove artificial software max_loop limit' \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).