[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC] sys_setrlimit() in 2.6.16

    * Andrew Morton <> wrote:

    > This has to be considered a bug. The spec certainly implies that a
    > limit of zero should be honoured and, probably more importantly,
    > that's how it works in 2.4.
    > Problem is, the code in there all assumes that an it_prof_expires of
    > zero means "it was never set", and changing that (add a yes-it-has
    > flag?) would be less than trivial.
    > So I think the path of least resistance here is to just convert the
    > caller's zero seconds into one second. That in fact gives the same
    > behaviour as 2.4: you get whacked after one second or more CPU time.
    > (This is not a final patch - that revolting expression in
    > sys_setrlimit() needs help first).

    your approach looks good to me. It doesnt make much sense anyway to have
    a task whacked right after startup ... so adding a common-sense "the
    user must have meant some really small value" thing doesnt look all that

    Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <>

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-02-16 10:51    [W:0.024 / U:5.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site