From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422740AbXCWI7Y (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Mar 2007 04:59:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422743AbXCWI7X (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Mar 2007 04:59:23 -0400 Received: from hosting4p.com ([81.0.235.160]:46982 "EHLO micron1.hosting4p.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422740AbXCWI7X (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Mar 2007 04:59:23 -0400 Message-ID: <460396F5.5020509@slax.org> Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 09:59:33 +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: <1696002332@web.de> In-Reply-To: <1696002332@web.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > wondering that here are 13 postings about loopdevice limitation, but > nobody giving any comment about dm-loop ( > http://sources.redhat.com/lvm2/wiki/DMLoop ), which is a solution for > this problem ...... If I understand it correctly, I would need 'dm' in kernel (or module) and moreover I would need some userspace utilities/binaries. > It can be used as a 1:1 replacement for classic loop and > should (?) probably be ready for mainline in the not too far future. So it is not in Kernel? With current loop, people would need kernel patch and *no* userspace utilities. With dm-loop, people would need kernel patch *and* userspace utilities. So, from my point of view, it would be better to fix/enhance Linux's loop. Tomas M slax.org