Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:43:01 +0200 | From | Jiri Slaby <> | Subject | Re: [GIT] writable_limits for 2.6.36 |
| |
On 08/10/2010 06:21 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote: > On 8/10/2010 12:01 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> 2010/8/7 Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>: >> >>> please consider the following repository for 2.6.36. It introduces a new >>> syscall for arch independent resource limits handling. It also adds a >>> support for runtime limits changing. This feature is needed mostly by >>> daemons servicing databases and similar service where limits are needed >>> to be changed without services being restarted on production systems. >>> >> Ok, so the code looks fine, and I don't have any real objections any >> more. I don't know how much use this will get, but it doesn't appear >> to be "wrong" in any way. So I was going to pull it.
Ok, thanks.
>> However, in the meantime we have commit 5360bd776f73 ("Fix up the >> "generic" unistd.h ABI to be more useful") that clashes with it. Now, >> the conflict is trivial to resolve, and I could do that easily - it's >> not a technical problem. But that commit code comments say >> >> + * Architectures may provide up to 16 syscalls of their own >> + * starting with this value. >> + */ >> +#define __NR_arch_specific_syscall 244 >> >> and the new writable rlimits syscall is obviously 244. >> > > Jiri and I actually discussed this back on July 20th on LKML when it > first conflicted in linux-next, and at the time he said he'd move > prlimit64 to 261 in <asm-generic/unistd.h>. It looks like what actually > stuck in linux-next was different, however. It's partly my fault for > not following up on this.
I would do that if the tree reached linus's tree earlier, so that I could rebase my tree on the top of that. Otherwise I couldn't do much with that.
The resolving (merge) in -next is done by Stephen, so he probably misunderstood us. (Oh, I could have a for-next branch where I would merge your tree to solve the -next merging done by Stephen, but it wouldn't solve the situation we got into now.)
thanks, -- js suse labs
| |