From: Uwe Bugla <uwe.bugla@gmx.de>
To: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org>
Cc: "Kay Sievers" <kay.sievers@vrfy.org>,
"Ray Lee" <ray-lk@madrabbit.org>,
"Al Viro" <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>, "Uwe Bugla" <uwe.bugla@gmx.de>,
"Ken Chen" <kenchen@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Michal Piotrowski" <michal.k.k.piotrowski@gmail.com>,
Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>,
Andrey Borzenkov <arvidjaar@mail.ru>
Subject: Re: bug in 2.6.22-rc2: loop mount limited to one single iso image
Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 18:29:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200705201829.19838.uwe.bugla@gmx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1179677799.3311.5.camel@lov.localdomain>
Am Sonntag, 20. Mai 2007 18:16 schrieben Sie:
> On Sun, 2007-05-20 at 09:10 -0700, Ray Lee wrote:
> > On 5/20/07, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org> wrote:
> > > On 5/20/07, Ray Lee <ray-lk@madrabbit.org> wrote:
> > > > On 5/19/07, Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 11:16:59PM -0700, Ray Lee wrote:
> > > > > > Ken? Ball's in your court. As the patch isn't providing a killer
> > > > > > feature for 2.6.22, I'd suggest just reverting it for now until
> > > > > > the issues are ironed out.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hold it. The real question here is which logics do we want there.
> > > > > IOW, and how many device nodes do we want to appear and _when_ do
> > > > > we want them to appear?
> > > >
> > > > The when part is what looks to make it racy. I'm guessing that we're
> > > > relying on udev to create those loop nodes. If so, I think any scheme
> > > > that creates more on demand would give transient mount errors while
> > > > it's waiting on udev to create more nodes.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps if we were to start with 8 loop nodes at init (as we have in
> > > > 2.6.21), and then always maintain a margin of 8 (or 4, or...) when
> > > > they start being used or detached?
> > >
> > > Until the tools can request dynamic loop device allocation from the
> > > kernel before they want to use the device, you can create as many as
> > > needed "static" loop* nodes in /lib/udev/devices/, which will be
> > > copied to /dev/ early on every bootup.
> >
> > Except that's different than current behavior presented to userspace.
> > IOW, we broke userspace for anyone using udev. Which is, y'know, a lot
> > of us.
> >
> > We're at -rc2 right now. Given that, it looks like we have two
> > options. First is to revert all this for now and try again when the
> > patch has had more testing and agreement (as this isn't a major
> > feature we're talking about here; it's effectively just a cleanup that
> > happened to have unfortunate side-effects).
> >
> > The second option is that we could have the loop device start with 8
> > nodes populated, which would match current behavior.
> >
> > A third option of requiring new userspace for 2.6.22 is a non-starter.
>
> Right, providing "preallocated" devices, 8 or the number given in
> max_loop, sounds like the best option until the tools can handle that.
>
> Thanks,
> Kay
OK people, this is what I did just to resolve the issue for now:
1. copied loop.c from 2.6.21 into the 2.6.22-rc2 tree
2. changed exactly two entries from "invalidate_bdev(bdev, 0)"
to "invalidate_bdev(bdev)"
Output is:
a. a compilable kernel
b. all four iso images are mounted as expected
Andrey's path however (i. e. copying his attached version of loop.c into the
2.6.22-rc2 kernel tree) led to:
a. an incompilable kernel
b. endless messages trying to compile loop.c going like this (just a part of
them - not complete anyway!):
drivers/block/loop.c:1350: error: stray '\240' in program
drivers/block/loop.c:1350: error: stray '\240' in program
drivers/block/loop.c:1350: error: stray '\240' in program
drivers/block/loop.c:1350: error: stray '\240' in program
drivers/block/loop.c:1351: error: stray '\240' in program
drivers/block/loop.c:1351: error: stray '\240' in program
drivers/block/loop.c:1351: error: stray '\240' in program
drivers/block/loop.c:1351: error: stray '\240' in program
drivers/block/loop.c:1351: error: stray '\240' in program
drivers/block/loop.c:1351: error: stray '\240' in program
drivers/block/loop.c:1351: error: stray '\240' in program
drivers/block/loop.c:1351: error: stray '\240' in program
drivers/block/loop.c:1351: error: stray '\240' in program
drivers/block/loop.c:1351: error: stray '\240' in program
drivers/block/loop.c:1351: error: stray '\240' in program
drivers/block/loop.c:1351: error: stray '\240' in program
drivers/block/loop.c:1351: error: stray '\240' in program
drivers/block/loop.c:1351: error: stray '\240' in program
drivers/block/loop.c:1351: error: stray '\240' in program
drivers/block/loop.c:1351: error: stray '\240' in program
drivers/block/loop.c: In function 'loop_register_transfer':
drivers/block/loop.c:1367: error: stray '\240' in program
drivers/block/loop.c:1367: error: stray '\240' in program
drivers/block/loop.c:1367: error: stray '\240' in program
drivers/block/loop.c:1367: error: stray '\240' in program
drivers/block/loop.c:1367: error: stray '\240' in program
drivers/block/loop.c:1367: error: stray '\240' in program
drivers/block/loop.c:1367: error: stray '\240' in program
drivers/block/loop.c:1367: error: stray '\240' in program
Thanks to Ray! Well done!
Best regards
Uwe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-20 16:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-19 18:33 bug in 2.6.22-rc2: loop mount limited to one single iso image Ray Lee
2007-05-19 19:17 ` Andrey Borzenkov
[not found] ` <200705200124.13026.uwe.bugla@gmx.de>
2007-05-20 4:45 ` Andrey Borzenkov
2007-05-20 6:16 ` Ray Lee
2007-05-20 6:28 ` Al Viro
2007-05-20 6:58 ` Andrey Borzenkov
2007-05-20 14:52 ` Uwe Bugla
2007-05-20 15:26 ` Ray Lee
2007-05-20 15:22 ` Ray Lee
2007-05-20 15:54 ` Kay Sievers
2007-05-20 16:02 ` Andrey Borzenkov
2007-05-20 16:23 ` Andreas Schwab
2007-05-20 16:10 ` Ray Lee
2007-05-20 16:16 ` Kay Sievers
2007-05-20 16:29 ` Uwe Bugla [this message]
2007-05-20 19:53 ` Michael Mauch
2007-05-21 16:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-05-21 16:27 ` Ken Chen
2007-05-21 16:35 ` Ray Lee
2007-05-21 16:37 ` Ken Chen
2007-05-21 16:50 ` Uwe Bugla
2007-05-21 17:11 ` Kay Sievers
2007-05-21 17:51 ` Andrey Borzenkov
2007-05-21 17:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-05-21 20:48 ` Ken Chen
2007-05-21 21:20 ` Uwe Bugla
2007-05-21 22:04 ` Andrew Morton
2007-05-22 0:10 ` Al Viro
2007-05-22 0:13 ` Al Viro
2007-05-20 16:09 ` Andrey Borzenkov
2007-05-20 16:14 ` Ray Lee
2007-05-22 20:18 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-22 21:35 ` Uwe Bugla
2007-05-21 6:08 ` Ken Chen
2007-05-21 6:40 ` Ray Lee
2007-05-21 7:59 ` Uwe Bugla
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-05-19 13:53 Uwe Bugla
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200705201829.19838.uwe.bugla@gmx.de \
--to=uwe.bugla@gmx.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arvidjaar@mail.ru \
--cc=kay.sievers@vrfy.org \
--cc=kenchen@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michal.k.k.piotrowski@gmail.com \
--cc=ray-lk@madrabbit.org \
--cc=schwab@suse.de \
--cc=viro@ftp.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox