On 10/07/2014 11:32 AM, Francis Moreau wrote: > On 10/07/2014 11:17 AM, Karel Zak wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 10:59:00PM +0200, Francis Moreau wrote: >>> On 10/06/2014 07:40 PM, Karel Zak wrote: >>>> On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 06:35:20PM +0200, Francis Moreau wrote: >>>>> One last details is that the system uses pretty old stuff: kernel >>>>> 3.4.50, util-linux 2.21.1. >>>> >>>> $ git log --oneline v2.21.. -- lib/loopdev.c sys-utils/losetup.c | wc -l >>>> 62 >>>> >>>>> Could anybody give me some help ? >>>> >>>> update, this is upstream mailing list I have doubts anyone is ready >>>> to help you with code released 2 years ago. >>> >>> well it looks like more a kernel issue since the sequence of syscalls >>> done by losetup looks correct. Maybe someone here already encountered >>> this... >>> >>> I just found that loop module was loaded with max_part=16 and >>> CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LOOP_MIN_COUNT=8. If max_part is set to 0 then the issue >>> is gone :-/ >> >> Well, if you have kernel that provides /dev/loop-control then you >> don't have to set CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LOOP_MIN_COUNT at all. I guess >> "8" (kernel upstream default?) is mostly about backward compatibility. >> >> For example fedora uses CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LOOP_MIN_COUNT=0. All is >> dynamically allocated by kernel + udev. > > You're right, CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LOOP_MIN_COUNT can be set to 0. But that > doesnt explain my initial issue. > > I have to understand why setting up a loop dev fails if the number of > loop used is > 1 and max_part != 0. > In HEAD of the git tree, in file losetup.c, the return value of loopcxt_add_device() is not checked in main(). Is this expected ? Thanks -- 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
