Loopbacks are so damned useful that I'm certain I'll
soon run out of them, and I doubt I'm the only person
in that position, particularly with some of the
improvements in the crypto patches making it possible
to run an all crypto system.
I note that the number is set in loop.c
static int max_loop = 8;
and I wonder what the safe upper limit for this is,
and if there is some reason for not making it larger
or perhaps making it a CONFIGurable item?
It is configurable.
options loop max_loop=n
in modules.conf, or if youre using it builtin
max_loop=n at kernel options.
//Cioby
On Lu, 2002-04-01 at 03:30, Dale Amon wrote:
> Loopbacks are so damned useful that I'm certain I'll
> soon run out of them, and I doubt I'm the only person
> in that position, particularly with some of the
> improvements in the crypto patches making it possible
> to run an all crypto system.
>
> I note that the number is set in loop.c
>
> static int max_loop = 8;
>
> and I wonder what the safe upper limit for this is,
> and if there is some reason for not making it larger
> or perhaps making it a CONFIGurable item?
>
>
> -
> 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/
Dumitru Ciobarcianu <[email protected]> writes:
> It is configurable.
>
> options loop max_loop=n
>
> in modules.conf, or if youre using it builtin
Does it take lots of kernal memory to set it high? Or how hard would
it be to make it eventually completely dynamic?
--
Mark Atwood | Well done is better than well said.
[email protected] |
http://www.pobox.com/~mra