Re: Max number of loop devices OR "efficient search of Debian documentation"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On 05/18/2014 09:52 AM, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Tom H a écrit :
>> If you have loop compiled in to the kernel, as I do below, you can
>> only change the number of loop devices at boot by using
>> "max_loop=<number_of_loop_devices" on the kernel cmdline.
>>
>> But if loop is compiled as module
>>
>> # rmmod loop
>> # modprobe loop max_loop=<number_loop_devices_minus_one>
>
> One more general piece of information about module parameters : some
> may be modified on the fly by writing into
> /sys/module/<module>/parameters/<parameter>. But it appears that
> /sys/module/loop/parameters/max_loop is read only.
What does 'modprobe -r loop' do to any active loop devices?
I would expect it to either error out without removing the module if any
loop devices are in use, or automatically shut the loop devices down.
If that's correct, then that might explain why the max_loop sysfs file
is read-only. If it were not, then what happens if you reduce it below
the number of currently active loop devices?
If the "automatically shut the loop devices down" case is what applies,
the system could theoretically shut down one or more loop devices to
bring the number of currently active ones within the new max_loop limit.
However, if there's more than one active device, how should it choose?
That's really a policy question, and doesn't belong to the kernel.
- --
The Wanderer
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.
A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=e75a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: