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, 22 Jan 2002 12:32:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:32:36 -0500 Received: from nat-pool-meridian.redhat.com ([12.107.208.200]:29701 "EHLO devserv.devel.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:32:22 -0500 Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:32:20 -0500 From: Pete Zaitcev To: Andi Kleen Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zaitcev@redhat.com Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: 2.4.17:Increase number of anonymous filesystems beyond 256? Message-ID: <20020122123220.A27968@devserv.devel.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <200201171351.g0HDpdK05456@bliss.uni-koblenz.de.suse.lists.linux.kernel> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from ak@suse.de on Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 06:49:53PM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > From: Andi Kleen > Newsgroups: linux-kernel > Date: 17 Jan 2002 18:49:53 +0100 > --- linux-work/net/sunrpc/xprt.c-o Mon Oct 8 21:36:07 2001 > +++ linux-work/net/sunrpc/xprt.c Thu Jan 17 18:44:05 2002 > @@ -1507,6 +1507,13 @@ > > memset(&myaddr, 0, sizeof(myaddr)); > myaddr.sin_family = AF_INET; > +#define SUNRPC_NONSECURE_PORT 1 > +#ifdef SUNRPC_NONSECURE_PORT > + err = sock->ops->bind(sock, (struct sockaddr *) &myaddr, > + sizeof(myaddr)); > + if (err < 0) > + printk("RPC: cannot bind to a port\n"); > +#else > port = 800; > do { > myaddr.sin_port = htons(port); > @@ -1516,6 +1523,9 @@ > > if (err < 0) > printk("RPC: Can't bind to reserved port (%d).\n", -err); > + > +#endif > + > > return err; > } Andi, the patch above begs two questions in my mind: 1. Why to bind to 0 (INADDR_ANY) explicitly? My patch does not bind at all and expects connect() to bind automatically. It is how userland works and it seems to work here as well. 2. What did you do to increase the number of unnamed devices? You said the patch "should" work, did that mean you did not test it? -- Pete