From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932901AbXCVOZY (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:25:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932954AbXCVOZY (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:25:24 -0400 Received: from hosting4p.com ([81.0.235.160]:42711 "EHLO micron1.hosting4p.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932901AbXCVOZX (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:25:23 -0400 Message-ID: <460291DE.8090403@slax.org> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:25:34 +0100 From: Tomas M User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: max_loop limit References: <460236CE.1030303@slax.org> <20070322110058.GB23664@tatooine.rebelbase.local> <46026A92.4020106@slax.org> <20070322144210.73dfaf83.dada1@cosmosbay.com> In-Reply-To: <20070322144210.73dfaf83.dada1@cosmosbay.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > You might want a more radical patch : I agree that my patch is not the perfect solution for max_loop problem. But it nearly doubles max_loop for me (using 386 arch) and moreover it is a FIX for incorrect implementation in kernel IMHO. So I can see REASON to include it in Kernel. Do I cry at the correct tomb? :) > > Instead of using : > :: > Switch to : > :: I'm not any professional kernel hacker, so I don't understand the mysteries regarding ** (pointers to pointers?). Is there anyone who could provide CLEAN patch for loop.c, which would raise the max_loop limit to (at least) 1024 and which would be ACCEPTED to mainline kernel any soon? I'm offering MONEY for this task. Let's say $256 ;-) I hope I didn't offend anyone by this offer. Tomas M slax.org