From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933865AbXDASoA (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Apr 2007 14:44:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933860AbXDASoA (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Apr 2007 14:44:00 -0400 Received: from smtpout.mac.com ([17.250.248.184]:64321 "EHLO smtpout.mac.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933865AbXDASn6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Apr 2007 14:43:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1714123823@web.de> References: <1714123823@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <6BD015BC-3F6A-4839-9A66-DB2E322F5B74@mac.com> Cc: Ken Chen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Kyle Moffett Subject: Re: [patch] remove artificial software max_loop limit Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 14:43:52 -0400 To: devzero@web.de X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Brightmail-scanned: yes Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Apr 01, 2007, at 14:36:11, devzero@web.de wrote: >> Blame on the dual meaning of max_loop that it uses currently: to >> initialize a set of loop devices and as a side effect, it also sets >> the upper limit. People are complaining about the former constrain, >> isn't it? Does anyone uses the 2nd meaning of upper limit? >> >> - Ken > > what sense would it make to set an upper limit at all? > > we`re so happy to have none anymore :) Well, the point of an upper limit might be to keep loop devices from chewing up too much memory on a system. IE: To fail allocating more loopdevs before you run OOM and start killing random userspace processes. Cheers, Kyle Moffett