> Ah, I remember this thing from lkml. i wonder how people keep with that high number of postings :) > So, we need increment hardcoded limit of loop devices only. Right? seems so, but i`m not a programmer/kernel hacker, so i cannot tell what`s the right way to do... anyway - with the current way of checking for existance of loop-devices, it doesn`t matter if value of 256 is being set to a much higher value. > Read the code. It doesn't check for all devices in range 0..256 -- it > breaks the for() loop when a /dev/loopN doesn't exist. For example on > my system it doesn't check for more than nine device. I don't see a > problem with a huge limit. ah, ok - thanks for explaining. but, anyway - it`s a little bit weird that it stops checking if there is a "gap" in between. > Note, there is also list of loop devices in /sys/block, but it's > useless for never used loop devices. See: ah, yes. a blockdevice is a blockdevice ..... :) > # losetup -d /dev/loop100 > > # stat -t /sys/block/loop100 > /sys/block/loop100 0 0 41ed 0 0 0 13994 4 0 0 1193761350 1193760920 > 1193760920 4096 > > Wow, the directory /sys/block/loop100 is persistent now. i think it`s weird that such orphaned loop-device entries being left over. > # losetup -a <--- nothing... loop100 is invisible. Bug :-( indeed. i wonder if there is a better way to proceed, but i don`t have an idea. maybe worth asking on lkml ? regards roland ps: could you probably CC me on next reply? i`m not subscribed to the list. thanks _________________________________________________________________________ In 5 Schritten zur eigenen Homepage. Jetzt Domain sichern und gestalten! Nur 3,99 EUR/Monat! http://www.maildomain.web.de/?mc=021114 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux-ng" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
