-
Senior Member
registered user
There is always two sides to a coin. Either you call it knoppix created not enough loop devices or you call it knoppix created one too many loop device/directory.
Furthermore, if you could just extract a copy of /bin/mount from a knoppix 6.2 and test use it on your system ( you could copy it to say /tmp, and then issue command as /tmp/mount), then you will appreciate what I mean:- That extra loop device/directory is not disturbing the system at all with /bin/mount from knoppix 6.2. If you use a newer /bin/mount, yes, it matters.
-
Senior Member
registered user
Originally Posted by
kl522
There is always two sides to a coin. Either you call it knoppix created not enough loop devices or you call it knoppix created one too many loop device/directory.
Furthermore, if you could just extract a copy of /bin/mount from a knoppix 6.2 and test use it on your system ( you could copy it to say /tmp, and then issue command as /tmp/mount), then you will appreciate what I mean:- That extra loop device/directory is not disturbing the system at all with /bin/mount from knoppix 6.2. If you use a newer /bin/mount, yes, it matters.
I still don't understand this. Knoppix 6.2.1 created /dev/loop/0 - that's enough for Knoppix to mount on, but not for other purposes. So it's not one too many directories, it conforms to what newer versions try to use, just as you write. And we can, as I did, create more ourselves. I thought it seemed better to follow the development, but basically, I just wanted it to work. (And I'm not interested in more details than I absolutely need to know..)
Using your rm -rf /dev/loop trick, /dev/loop0../dev/loop7 are created afterwards - the old way. Seems to work just nice, BUT if some programs expect the newer organization, at least in theory it could be safer to use that? Instinctively, I'm not too happy with recursively deleting devices in init scripts.
-
Senior Member
registered user
Trying to find out more about this, I really get confused, as the /dev/loop/X way of naming seems to be associated with the deprecated devfs nomenclature. So it should be /dev/loopX? I would very much like to stay out of such silly naming discussions, but that Knoppix bug just placed me there
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Macintosh Classic Model M-1420, For Parts Not Working. See Pics.
$45.00
Vintage IBM 4341 / 4361 / 4381 MCM Processor Mainframe CPU
$120.00
2x Various Brands 10.5" Mainframe 9-Track Reel Computer Data Tape 6250 CPI .5"
$7.99
Data General Nova Computer Vintage (SR41)
$4999.99
VINTAGE CPU IBM MCM POWER7 - MAINFRAME PROCESSOR
$49.00
1960's Vintage GE-600 Series Mainframe Computer PCB Bitslice Accumulator Board
$10.95
IBM Mainframe Core Memory, 1959
$2250.00
10 Vintage Mainframe Computer Punch Cards Time Cards McBee H6680*C NOS Vintage
$10.00
Vintage 1985 IBM 5291 2 X2790 8520850 System/36 Mini-Computer Terminal Base
$79.99
Lotus Works Vintage Software 3.5in Disks Original Seal 1990 Mainframe Collection
$431.99