On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> Speaking of which, I wonder... Here, and in many other places.
> If some variable is marked as MODULE_PARAM (or whatever it is called
> nowadays), used in module init routine, AND subsequently used for
> various bound checks and loops...
[...]
>
Eric Dumazet wrote:
[]
>
> MODULE_PARM_DESC(max_loop, "Maximum number of loop devices (1-16384)");
Speaking of which, I wonder... Here, and in many other places.
If some variable is marked as MODULE_PARAM (or whatever it is called
nowadays), used in module init routine, AND subsequently used
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 03:48:09PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:36:05 +
> Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 03:19:56PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > I cooked the following patch (untested), feel free to test it.
> >
> > Please, get the
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:25:23 +0100 (CET)
Jiri Kosina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> > - if (max_loop < 1 || max_loop > 256) {
> > - printk(KERN_WARNING "loop: invalid max_loop (must be between"
> > - " 1 and
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 02:41:09PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> The right thing to start with is to split the allocation up, and allocate
> each loop device by itself, like in the untested patch below:
>
> After that you're not wasting memory for any off number of loop devices
> and can
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:36:05 +
Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 03:19:56PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > I cooked the following patch (untested), feel free to test it.
>
> Please, get the cleanup into saner shape. This is too ugly.
out_mem:
while
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 03:04:54PM +0100, Tomas M wrote:
> I posted this yesterday but it seems people didn't understand the real
> goal of my patch. So I will explain once more again:
>
> This is a bugfix for loop.c block driver, as it currently allocates more
> memory then it needs, without
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 03:19:56PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:04:54 +0100
> Tomas M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I posted this yesterday but it seems people didn't understand the real
> > goal of my patch. So I will explain once more again:
> >
> > This is a bugfix
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:04:54 +0100 Tomas M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I posted this yesterday but it seems people didn't understand the real
>> goal of my patch. So I will explain once more again:
>> This is a bugfix for loop.c block driver, as it currently allocates more
>> memory then it
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> - if (max_loop < 1 || max_loop > 256) {
> - printk(KERN_WARNING "loop: invalid max_loop (must be between"
> - " 1 and 256), using default (8)\n");
> + if (max_loop < 1) {
> +
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:04:54 +0100
Tomas M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I posted this yesterday but it seems people didn't understand the real
> goal of my patch. So I will explain once more again:
>
> This is a bugfix for loop.c block driver, as it currently allocates more
> memory then it
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Tomas M wrote:
> This is a bugfix for loop.c block driver, as it currently allocates more
> memory then it needs, without any further use.
> If 'max_loop=255' parameter is given, the loop.c driver allocates this
> amount of memory:
> kmalloc(max_loop * sizeof(struct
I posted this yesterday but it seems people didn't understand the real
goal of my patch. So I will explain once more again:
This is a bugfix for loop.c block driver, as it currently allocates more
memory then it needs, without any further use.
If 'max_loop=255' parameter is given, the loop.c
I posted this yesterday but it seems people didn't understand the real
goal of my patch. So I will explain once more again:
This is a bugfix for loop.c block driver, as it currently allocates more
memory then it needs, without any further use.
If 'max_loop=255' parameter is given, the loop.c
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Tomas M wrote:
This is a bugfix for loop.c block driver, as it currently allocates more
memory then it needs, without any further use.
If 'max_loop=255' parameter is given, the loop.c driver allocates this
amount of memory:
kmalloc(max_loop * sizeof(struct
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:04:54 +0100
Tomas M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I posted this yesterday but it seems people didn't understand the real
goal of my patch. So I will explain once more again:
This is a bugfix for loop.c block driver, as it currently allocates more
memory then it needs,
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Eric Dumazet wrote:
- if (max_loop 1 || max_loop 256) {
- printk(KERN_WARNING loop: invalid max_loop (must be between
- 1 and 256), using default (8)\n);
+ if (max_loop 1) {
+ printk(KERN_WARNING loop:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:04:54 +0100 Tomas M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I posted this yesterday but it seems people didn't understand the real
goal of my patch. So I will explain once more again:
This is a bugfix for loop.c block driver, as it currently allocates more
memory then it needs,
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 03:19:56PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:04:54 +0100
Tomas M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I posted this yesterday but it seems people didn't understand the real
goal of my patch. So I will explain once more again:
This is a bugfix for loop.c
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:36:05 +
Al Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 03:19:56PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
I cooked the following patch (untested), feel free to test it.
Please, get the cleanup into saner shape. This is too ugly.
out_mem:
while (nba--)
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 02:41:09PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
The right thing to start with is to split the allocation up, and allocate
each loop device by itself, like in the untested patch below:
After that you're not wasting memory for any off number of loop devices
and can create as
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:25:23 +0100 (CET)
Jiri Kosina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Eric Dumazet wrote:
- if (max_loop 1 || max_loop 256) {
- printk(KERN_WARNING loop: invalid max_loop (must be between
-1 and 256), using
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 03:48:09PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:36:05 +
Al Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 03:19:56PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
I cooked the following patch (untested), feel free to test it.
Please, get the cleanup into
Eric Dumazet wrote:
[]
MODULE_PARM_DESC(max_loop, Maximum number of loop devices (1-16384));
Speaking of which, I wonder... Here, and in many other places.
If some variable is marked as MODULE_PARAM (or whatever it is called
nowadays), used in module init routine, AND subsequently used for
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Michael Tokarev wrote:
Speaking of which, I wonder... Here, and in many other places.
If some variable is marked as MODULE_PARAM (or whatever it is called
nowadays), used in module init routine, AND subsequently used for
various bound checks and loops...
[...]
and so
25 matches
Mail list logo
