From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 21 May 2002 02:05:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 21 May 2002 02:05:45 -0400 Received: from violet.setuza.cz ([194.149.118.97]:55312 "EHLO violet.setuza.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 21 May 2002 02:05:44 -0400 Subject: Re: RFC - named loop devices... From: Frank Schaefer To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20020521015517.609d5516.spyro@armlinux.org> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0 (Preview Release) Date: 21 May 2002 08:05:44 +0200 Message-Id: <1021961145.260.0.camel@ADMIN> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2002-05-21 at 02:55, Ian Molton wrote: > I havent thought about this too much, but... > > When /etc/mtab is a symlink to /proc/mounts the umount command will fail > to unmount loopback mounted filesystems properly. > > I was wondering if a solution to this would be to introduce 'named' > loopback devices. > > with named loop devices, umount will then know that mount was the > creator of a loopback device that it mounted, and can safely destroy it. > > at present, mounting and unmounting disc images causes one to run out of > loopback devices rather rapidly. > > If I were to knock up a patch to implement named loop devices, would it > stand a chance of being accepted? > > also, how should this work? should the name be that of the creating > process or should it just be a field that the creator can fill in as it > pleases? What about losetup? Regards Frank