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 17:17:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 17:17:11 -0500 Received: from ns.suse.de ([213.95.15.193]:36626 "HELO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 17:17:03 -0500 Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:17:02 +0100 From: Andi Kleen To: Pete Zaitcev Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: 2.4.17:Increase number of anonymous filesystems beyond 256? Message-ID: <20020122231702.A30689@wotan.suse.de> In-Reply-To: <200201171351.g0HDpdK05456@bliss.uni-koblenz.de.suse.lists.linux.kernel> <20020122123220.A27968@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020122123220.A27968@devserv.devel.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 12:32:20PM -0500, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > Andi, the patch above begs two questions in my mind: > > 1. Why to bind to 0 (INADDR_ANY) explicitly? My patch does not bind > at all and expects connect() to bind automatically. It is how > userland works and it seems to work here as well. No real reason. Should work too. > > 2. What did you do to increase the number of unnamed devices? > You said the patch "should" work, did that mean you did not test it? I didn't, but the original reporter reported that it works for him. -Andi