Re: [patch-2.3.40-pre6] nfds limit for poll() raised to 131 million (is that enough?)

From: Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Date: Thu Jan 20 2000 - 12:31:57 EST

Next message: Jamie Lokier: "Re: Quiescent filesystems marked with EXT2_VALID_FS while still mounted?"
Previous message: Tim Waugh: "[patch] 2.3.40pre6: Take 3: avoid bounce buffers"
In reply to: Tigran Aivazian: "[patch-2.3.40-pre6] nfds limit for poll() raised to 131 million (is that enough?)"
Next in thread: Bill Wendling: "Re: [patch-2.3.40-pre6] nfds limit for poll() raised to 131 million (is that enough?)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> Does Alan have any preference or are we all working in the wrong direction
> and he prefers kmalloc/vmalloc split (or some other) idea?

I think I prefer the linked list approach. As to Linus' view I have no idea

> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

-
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: Jamie Lokier: "Re: Quiescent filesystems marked with EXT2_VALID_FS while still mounted?"
Previous message: Tim Waugh: "[patch] 2.3.40pre6: Take 3: avoid bounce buffers"
In reply to: Tigran Aivazian: "[patch-2.3.40-pre6] nfds limit for poll() raised to 131 million (is that enough?)"
Next in thread: Bill Wendling: "Re: [patch-2.3.40-pre6] nfds limit for poll() raised to 131 million (is that enough?)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 23 2000 - 21:00:22 EST