lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [git pull] pull request for writable limits for 2.6.34-rc0


On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>
> please pull the writable limits tree below.

Ok, sorry for the long delay - I spent 5 days at two separate intel events
over the last two weeks, which ended up sucking up a lot of my spare time
that I normally use to try to judge the merge window stuff. As a result, I
pulled mainly code that wasn't new (ie existing models), or that was
"obviously independent" (liek the new ceph filesystem) and didn't have any
contentious issues.

As a result, I ended up looking at the writable limits only today.

And I'm not entirely happy. For example, I absolutely _detest_ seeing new
compat code for a feature that was just added. My immediate reaction is
"WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?".
It's really annoying.

Why doesn't the new set/getprlimit things just take a pointer to a
well-defined pair of 64-bit values? Why is there any compat cruft at all
there? That is beyond insane. Just make the user level interface work
right in the first place, instead of adding crazy compat crap. This is
_not_ a legacy interface.

I'd also like to hear more about actual uses. Does _any_ other Unix-like
system actually implement this writable limits thing? Who is asking for
it?

Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-03-20 20:27    [W:0.152 / U:3.240 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site