> 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.
ok, sounds reasonable. but - not very sure here, but don`t you need to be root for creating loop devices and don`t you have many other ways to chew up too much memory then, anyway ? > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Kyle Moffett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Gesendet: 01.04.07 20:44:04 > An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CC: Ken Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Betreff: Re: [patch] remove artificial software max_loop limit > On Apr 01, 2007, at 14:36:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 > > _______________________________________________________________ SMS schreiben mit WEB.DE FreeMail - einfach, schnell und kostenguenstig. Jetzt gleich testen! http://f.web.de/?mc=021192 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
