Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:41:10 -0500 | From | Pete Zaitcev <> | Subject | Re: 2.4.17:Increase number of anonymous filesystems beyond 256? |
| |
> From: Rainer Krienke <krienke@uni-koblenz.de> > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 08:28:13 +0100
> > Rainer, you missed the point. Nobody cares about small things > > such as "cannot start nfsd" while your 4096 mounts patch > > simply CORRUPTS YOUR DATA TO HELL. > > Well I never said, I really knew what I was doing:-). Thats exacly why I > asked about why to use more major devices? OK the anser to this question > seems to be that minor devices may only be 8 bit due to the static nature of > some kernel structures. Right?
Close enough... Actual reason is the implementation of MINOR().
> > If you need more than 1200 mounts, you have to add more majors > > to my patch. There is a number of them between 115 and 198. > > I suspect scalability problems may become evident > > with this approach, but it will work. > > The solution Richard posted seems to be interesting at this point isn't it?
I thought about the rgooch's suggestion, it sounds good for 2.5. Red Hat do not ship devfs enabled currently, and I cannot use his allocation function if someone uses static majors, or some modules may not load. The patch does include a safety element (majorhog_xxx) that reserves majors properly. The devfs would make that unnecessary.
-- Pete - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |