1279 mounts

1279 mounts

[Pete Zaitcev]

I updated my patch that allows to mount unholy numbers of volumes.
The old version was for 2.4.9 and did not apply anymore.
I split the unnamed majors patch and the NFS patch.
Also, CONFIG_ option is gone, because it made the code ugly.

Majors part:
 http://people.redhat.com/zaitcev/linux/linux-2.4.19-pre7-unmaj.diff
NFS part:
 http://people.redhat.com/zaitcev/linux/linux-2.4.19-pre7-nores.diff
Userland for NFS:
 http://people.redhat.com/zaitcev/linux/util-linux-2.11q-nores1.diff

Is anyone actually interested? Random people periodically ask
me for patches, get them and disappear into the void. I hear
nothing good or bad (well, nothing since Trond reviewed it
several months ago, and also someone found a conflict with NFS
server code, since fixed). I am thinking about submitting,
but if users do not ask, why add extra bloat and negotiate
with LANANA...

-- Pete

Re: 1279 mounts

[Panu Matilainen]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Pete Zaitcev wrote:

> I updated my patch that allows to mount unholy numbers of volumes.
> The old version was for 2.4.9 and did not apply anymore.
> I split the unnamed majors patch and the NFS patch.
> Also, CONFIG_ option is gone, because it made the code ugly.
> 
> Majors part:
>  http://people.redhat.com/zaitcev/linux/linux-2.4.19-pre7-unmaj.diff
> NFS part:
>  http://people.redhat.com/zaitcev/linux/linux-2.4.19-pre7-nores.diff
> Userland for NFS:
>  http://people.redhat.com/zaitcev/linux/util-linux-2.11q-nores1.diff
> 
> Is anyone actually interested? Random people periodically ask
> me for patches, get them and disappear into the void. I hear
> nothing good or bad (well, nothing since Trond reviewed it
> several months ago, and also someone found a conflict with NFS
> server code, since fixed). I am thinking about submitting,
> but if users do not ask, why add extra bloat and negotiate
> with LANANA...

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...

	- Panu -

Re: 1279 mounts

[Pete Zaitcev]

> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 11:25:33 +0300 (EEST)
> From: Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@welho.com>

> 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.

-- Pete

Re: 1279 mounts

[Panu Matilainen]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2002, Pete Zaitcev wrote:

> > Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 11:25:33 +0300 (EEST)
> > From: Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@welho.com>
> 
> > 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 -