Am Sonntag, 20. Mai 2007 08:58 schrieben Sie: > On Sunday 20 May 2007, Al Viro wrote: > > On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 11:16:59PM -0700, Ray Lee wrote: > > > Ken? Ball's in your court. As the patch isn't providing a killer > > > feature for 2.6.22, I'd suggest just reverting it for now until the > > > issues are ironed out. > > > > Hold it. The real question here is which logics do we want there. > > IOW, and how many device nodes do we want to appear and _when_ do > > we want them to appear? > > of course we'd like to use exactly as many (or few) nodes as are in use > right now and without fixed limit for their number; which implies that > nodes should appear and go on as needed basis. > > But right now there is no kernel mechanism that user level program could > use to request allocation of new loop node. I won't discuss whether it is > legitimate to mandate new version of util-linux for kernel 2.6.22; but it > is obvious that any kernel patch that adds such mechanism goes far beyond > simple bug fix and is not acceptable at this stage. > > So let's revert this change and discuss it for post-2.6.22 timeframe.
Hi, I am of course not a fan of limiting the maximum of available loops to 8. My question / proposal for now would be: Could anybody of you please be kind enough and write / provide me a counter patch supplying me: a. a compilable 2.6.22-rc2 kernel b. a loop device that can mount up to 8 iso-images I would prefer this thing as outline attachment due to Email client wordwrapping problems. Looking happily forward to a functionable counter patch to resolve the current issue as a compromise solution, Best regards and thanks Uwe - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
