On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 09:07:16AM +0200, Karel Zak wrote: > On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 11:00:24AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:14:42AM +0100, Sami Kerola wrote: > > > The zram devices are not created by any sort of equipment appearing in a > > > bus so an method of creating new or removing existing devices will be > > > needed. When the zram module is loaded it should create > > > /dev/zram-control device, that responds to ioctl() calls[4]. The calls > > > could be similar with /dev/loop-control[5], that allow adding or removing > > > specified device, and discover adding a free device. > > > > Normally, dynamic management is good to have, I think but I didn't hear > > strong requirement for that until now. > > I guess that number of zram devices will be always relatively small > compare to /dev/loopN devices. It is not unusual that people use > systems with more than 256 loop devs, so /dev/loop-control makes a lot > of sense to keep the device management effective and simple. > > > Why don't you change num_device param at module loading time? > > If you have really many loopN devices than create all the nodes at > boot time means extra overhead (allocate nodes in kernel, events to > udev, create /dev files etc.). The ioctl LOOP_CTL_* API also provides > LOOP_CTL_GET_FREE that returns unused device, so you don't have to > scan all the /dev/loopN devices to detect a free device. Thanks for the info! > > > I'd like to hear real scenario from whom are about to using that faeture > > right now and what's the problem with num_device param. > > Again, I don't think it's so important for zram as for loop devices. > All depends how people will use zram devices. We will see... Yeb and we can do it when we see. > > Karel > > -- > Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx> > http://karelzak.blogspot.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
