On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 01:49:59AM +0000, Serge Hallyn wrote: > > I think having to pick and choose what device nodes you want in a > > container is a good thing. Becides, you would have to do the same thing > > in the kernel anyway, what's wrong with userspace making the decision > > here, especially as it knows exactly what it wants to do much more so > > than the kernel ever can. > > For 'real' devices that sounds sensible. The thing about loop devices > is that we simply want to allow a container to say "give me a loop > device to use" and have it receive a unique loop device (or 3), without > having to pre-assign them. I think that would be cleaner to do using > a pseudofs and loop-control device, rather than having to have a > daemon in userspace on the host farming those out in response to > some, I don't know, dbus request?
I agree that loop devices would be nice to have in a container, and that the existing loop interface doesn't really lend itself to that. So create a new type of thing that acts like a loop device in a container. But don't try to mess with the whole driver core just for a single type of device. greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/