From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933907AbXDATEc (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Apr 2007 15:04:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964773AbXDATEc (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Apr 2007 15:04:32 -0400 Received: from [198.99.130.12] ([198.99.130.12]:37102 "EHLO saraswathi.solana.com" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933916AbXDATEb (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Apr 2007 15:04:31 -0400 Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 15:00:51 -0400 From: Jeff Dike To: devzero@web.de Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] remove artificial software max_loop limit Message-ID: <20070401190051.GA31165@c2.user-mode-linux.org> References: <1713627366@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1713627366@web.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 12:53:55PM +0200, devzero@web.de wrote: > not sure if this is a real issue and if it`s UML or loop related - > but how is low-memory situations being handled when creating loop > devices ? It's UML-related - it's not dealing with the case of a kernel thread failing because of a lack of memory. Jeff -- Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com