Re: [patch?] Re: Do ramdisk exec's map direct to buffer cache?

From: Pavel Machek (pavel@suse.cz)
Date: Thu Aug 03 2000 - 05:43:09 EST

Next message: Roger Gammans: "Lockup with 2.2.15"
Previous message: Pavel Machek: "Re: Kual athlon support?"
In reply to: David Woodhouse: "Re: [patch?] Re: Do ramdisk exec's map direct to buffer cache?"
Next in thread: Mike Galbraith: "Re: [patch?] Re: Do ramdisk exec's map direct to buffer cache?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi!

> > Shipping 2.4 without the loopback device isn't really an option,
> > unless you want distributions to ship an old kernel version just so
> > that they can make their boot floppies.
>
> ... or unless you want distribution vendors to dig their heads out of the
> sand and learn about nbd.

This can never work. Read/write nbd over loopback has *principial*
deadlock in it. Think about it. You can not have userspace involved in
read/write block devices. THIS CAN NOT BE FIXED.
Pavel

-- I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care." Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@linmodems.org

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Roger Gammans: "Lockup with 2.2.15"
Previous message: Pavel Machek: "Re: Kual athlon support?"
In reply to: David Woodhouse: "Re: [patch?] Re: Do ramdisk exec's map direct to buffer cache?"
Next in thread: Mike Galbraith: "Re: [patch?] Re: Do ramdisk exec's map direct to buffer cache?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 07 2000 - 21:00:12 EST