From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Panu Matilainen Subject: Re: 1279 mounts Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 20:57:59 +0300 (EEST) Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: References: <20020427213236.A20253@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, Return-path: Received: from cs145025.pp.htv.fi ([213.243.145.25] helo=chip.2y.net) by usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Cipher TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 171sw9-0002LM-00 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 10:58:14 -0700 To: Pete Zaitcev In-Reply-To: <20020427213236.A20253@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: On Sat, 27 Apr 2002, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > > Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 11:25:33 +0300 (EEST) > > From: Panu Matilainen > > > I've got quite a few users here who "need" this functionality and it's > > included in our RH-based custom kernels. Having it as a separate patch > > for 2.4 is no problem, for 2.5 I'm hoping we finally move to 32bit device > > numbers... > > Mind, we only ship the unnamed majors part, but not the NFS part. > There is no word from util-linux maintainer about required > changes to mount(8), so I was cautious about doint that. Sure, I know. In these cases getting the limit from 255 to around 800 is enough so the mount patch isn't even needed. - Panu - _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs