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 10:41:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:40:57 -0500 Received: from mons.uio.no ([129.240.130.14]:19421 "EHLO mons.uio.no") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:40:50 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15437.34809.615045.692374@charged.uio.no> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 16:40:41 +0100 To: Rainer Krienke Cc: Pete Zaitcev , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: 2.4.17:Increase number of anonymous filesystems beyond 256? In-Reply-To: <200201221523.g0MFNst03011@bliss.uni-koblenz.de> In-Reply-To: <200201221308.g0MD8EY16176@bliss.uni-koblenz.de> <200201221523.g0MFNst03011@bliss.uni-koblenz.de> X-Mailer: VM 6.92 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no From: Trond Myklebust Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>>>> " " == Rainer Krienke writes: > Can somebody explain the major difference between both > solutions? Why did you Pete base your patch on 4 new major > device numbers whereas Andis patch did not need them? Are there > any major drawbacks involved not doing so? Both Andi and Pete solve the problem of the limit on the number of available reserved ports. In addition, Pete fixes a second problem. There is a limit to the number of 'unnamed' devices that the kernel can support (see the function get_unnamed_dev()). Since each NFS mount 'eats' one such device, this sets an upper limit of 255 simultaneous of NFS mounts whether or not we have enough reserved ports. Cheers, Trond