Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757924AbXETPWT (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 May 2007 11:22:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756538AbXETPWM (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 May 2007 11:22:12 -0400 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.171]:2404 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756482AbXETPWL (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 May 2007 11:22:11 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=tb9k6yKAiEiu3xSEUWqmygGWqOmlNpyAQrwDOzvWPU2Z5a1e7mZ2YsM3ydMVB7JKz0zfI0UuNTxVR+fYl4M/cSPWoEmwbnvcat51xQiBt2TddWMkeP2ovktoOF22IeubgTXK5l/xr2/7SRmhSHvB17r3lH2HntWHg8m8JqtXVWk= Message-ID: <2c0942db0705200822j685ec3b2x399a080622b6fc05@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 08:22:07 -0700 From: "Ray Lee" To: "Al Viro" Subject: Re: bug in 2.6.22-rc2: loop mount limited to one single iso image Cc: "Andrey Borzenkov" , "Uwe Bugla" , "Ken Chen" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Andrew Morton" , "Michal Piotrowski" In-Reply-To: <20070520062816.GA4095@ftp.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <464F42F3.1080300@madrabbit.org> <20070519191751.E51233A23A2@muan.mtu.ru> <200705200124.13026.uwe.bugla@gmx.de> <200705200845.43621.arvidjaar@mail.ru> <2c0942db0705192316s2682807chd23df6f4de29edcb@mail.gmail.com> <20070520062816.GA4095@ftp.linux.org.uk> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 372cea4f1fbe5027 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1110 Lines: 23 On 5/19/07, 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? The when part is what looks to make it racy. I'm guessing that we're relying on udev to create those loop nodes. If so, I think any scheme that creates more on demand would give transient mount errors while it's waiting on udev to create more nodes. Perhaps if we were to start with 8 loop nodes at init (as we have in 2.6.21), and then always maintain a margin of 8 (or 4, or...) when they start being used or detached? - 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/