[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:0.036 / U:0.092 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site