Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261222AbUKEWI6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Nov 2004 17:08:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261228AbUKEWI6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Nov 2004 17:08:58 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70]:8714 "EHLO sj-iport-1.cisco.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261222AbUKEWIv (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Nov 2004 17:08:51 -0500 X-BrightmailFiltered: true Message-Id: <200411052208.ATT88180@mira-sjc5-e.cisco.com> Reply-To: From: "Hua Zhong" To: "'Grzegorz Kulewski'" , "'Linus Torvalds'" Cc: "'Chris Wedgwood'" , "'Andries Brouwer'" , "'Adam Heath'" , "'Christoph Hellwig'" , "'Timothy Miller'" , "'Linux Kernel Mailing List'" Subject: RE: support of older compilers Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 14:08:45 -0800 Organization: Cisco Systems MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4939.300 Thread-Index: AcTDgx7pY6B1GLCKRkamDZmNLdwzygAAJuZA Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2052 Lines: 61 At least in 2.4.17 I couldn't loopback mount an (ext2) image from tmpfs and had to use ramfs. Has this been fixed? > > The kernel does do more these days than it did in '95. But > 6 times more? I > > dunno.. > > Can't we remove ramfs for a good start? Everyone should use > tmpfs instead > and some stupid distributions (I will not tell their names) > try to mount > ramfs on /dev (udev) and that leads to very stupid panic if you will > write for example: > > dd if=/dev/evms/sda5 of=/dev/sda17 bs=1024 > > instead of "of=/dev/evms/sda17". > > Explanation (if anybody needs one): > Kernel can't create more partition devices than 15 for SCSI > and SATA disks > because of lack of minor numbers. So I am using evms to create these > devices. So I should use /dev/evms/sda* for these partitions. > And if I > will not remember to do so then I will get oom panic very > shortly because > ramfs is not limited (in contrary to tmpfs). > > And this kind of stupid mistake can happen. It happened to me > 3 times in a > row before I started to debug what is wrong with this kernel. > > [BTW. Does somebody know how to tell the kernel that I do not want > /dev/sda[0-9]* files (but I do want /dev/hda files) created > == I do not > want kernel partition driver to touch this particular device?] > > And using ramfs for anything else can easily lead to similar > problems. So > I think we do not need ramfs. Am I wrong? [I understand that > removing it > will not remove much code.] > > > Thanks, > > Grzegorz Kulewski > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe > linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/