Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759608AbXEUQhn (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 May 2007 12:37:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755971AbXEUQhg (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 May 2007 12:37:36 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.13]:32990 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755821AbXEUQhf (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 May 2007 12:37:35 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: content-disposition:references; b=jHs2rkGwuAsYls0vUNgniA6Hjt7WErs6L3fp8//dq/OOsHQe3hjEoLmA8CJhFYHHG ICU36HADWoNX766R5zmmQ== Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 09:37:26 -0700 From: "Ken Chen" To: "Linus Torvalds" Subject: Re: bug in 2.6.22-rc2: loop mount limited to one single iso image Cc: "Kay Sievers" , "Ray Lee" , "Al Viro" , "Andrey Borzenkov" , "Uwe Bugla" , "Linux Kernel Mailing List" , "Andrew Morton" , "Michal Piotrowski" In-Reply-To: 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> <200705200845.43621.arvidjaar@mail.ru> <2c0942db0705192316s2682807chd23df6f4de29edcb@mail.gmail.com> <20070520062816.GA4095@ftp.linux.org.uk> <2c0942db0705200822j685ec3b2x399a080622b6fc05@mail.gmail.com> <3ae72650705200854x6a2c829fueff3652653fc21da@mail.gmail.com> <2c0942db0705200910t777214efud489f4bc94433bf5@mail.gmail.com> <1179677799.3311.5.camel@lov.localdomain> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1306 Lines: 28 On 5/21/07, Ken Chen wrote: > yes and no. in that commit, I automatically create n+1 device when > loop device n is created, allergically was tested to be fine with > casual usage of "losetup" and "mount -o loop". However, there is a > bug in that commit when loop.c was compiled as a module. And when Al > fixed it, he also removed that magic "n+1" trick. > > Nevertheless, yes, I'm guilty of introducing the new behavior. The easiest way is to reinstate max_loop and create "max_loop" device up front at module load time. However, that will lose all the "fancy on-demand device instantiation feature". So I propose we do the following: 1. have the module honor "max_loop" parameter and create that many device upfront on module load (max_loop will also be a hard max) iff user specify the parameter. 2. if max_loop is not specified, default create 8 loop device. User can extent more loop device by create device node themselves and have kernel automatically instantiate loop device on-demand. Is this acceptable? Patch in a bit. - 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/