From: Andrey Borzenkov <arvidjaar@mail.ru>
To: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org>
Cc: Uwe Bugla <uwe.bugla@gmx.de>, Ken Chen <kenchen@google.com>,
Ray Lee <ray-lk@madrabbit.org>, Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@gmail.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: bug in 2.6.22-rc2: loop mount limited to one single iso image
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 21:51:28 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200705212151.44667.arvidjaar@mail.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1179767466.3320.48.camel@lov.localdomain>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2309 bytes --]
On Monday 21 May 2007, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 18:50 +0200, Uwe Bugla wrote:
> > Am Montag, 21. Mai 2007 18:37 schrieben Sie:
> > > On 5/21/07, Ken Chen <kenchen@google.com> wrote:
> > > > yes and no. in that commit, I automatically create n+1 device when
> > > > loop device n is created, allergically was tested to be fine with
> > > > casual usage of "losetup" and "mount -o loop". However, there is a
> > > > bug in that commit when loop.c was compiled as a module. And when Al
> > > > fixed it, he also removed that magic "n+1" trick.
> > > >
> > > > Nevertheless, yes, I'm guilty of introducing the new behavior.
> > >
> > > The easiest way is to reinstate max_loop and create "max_loop" device
> > > up front at module load time. However, that will lose all the "fancy
> > > on-demand device instantiation feature".
> > >
> > > So I propose we do the following:
> > >
> > > 1. have the module honor "max_loop" parameter and create that many
> > > device upfront on module load (max_loop will also be a hard max) iff
> > > user specify the parameter.
> > > 2. if max_loop is not specified, default create 8 loop device. User
> > > can extent more loop device by create device node themselves and have
> > > kernel automatically instantiate loop device on-demand.
> >
> > Sorry, Ken:
> > My question on point 2 would be: Does "User can extent more loop device
> > by create device node themselves and......." correspond or conflict to
> > working with udev?
>
> Udev shouldn't care if the kernel tells udev about the new device, and
> the node with the correct dev_t is already there, it will leave it as it
> is, and only apply the configured user,group,mode values.
>
> The loop tools should probably extended to be able to request new
> devices from the kernel in a different way than open().
>
Except as already mentioned it will introduce races between tool requesting
new device and udev creating new node. We already had this with raw devices.
My comparison with /dev/pts was incorrect because it is using internal
filesystem that creates devices synchronously.
May be all such cases has to be converted to use common file system.
mount -t nodefs -o device=pts none /dev/pts
mount -t nodefs -o device=loop none /dev/loop
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-21 17:52 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
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 [this message]
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=200705212151.44667.arvidjaar@mail.ru \
--to=arvidjaar@mail.ru \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--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=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=uwe.bugla@gmx.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