> Can somebody explain the major difference between both
> solutions? Why did you Pete base your patch on 4 new major
> device numbers whereas Andis patch did not need them? Are there
> any major drawbacks involved not doing so?
Both Andi and Pete solve the problem of the limit on the number of
available reserved ports.
In addition, Pete fixes a second problem. There is a limit to the
number of 'unnamed' devices that the kernel can support (see the
function get_unnamed_dev()). Since each NFS mount 'eats' one such
device, this sets an upper limit of 255 simultaneous of NFS mounts
whether or not we have enough reserved ports.
Cheers,
Trond
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/