[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100321060607.GA4062@x200>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 08:06:07 +0200
From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [git pull] pull request for writable limits for 2.6.34-rc0
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 12:20:58PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >
> > please pull the writable limits tree below.
> 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.
It's a perfect opportunity to introduce getrlimit64(2), setrlimit64(2)
_without_ involving /proc, without all bugs in setrlimit(2), without
compat code, with all resources equal across arches, and, optionally,
with infinity setting clearly separate from value (useful for C/R).
Pity, we will have config option for 64-bit internal rlimits.
Alexey, who detests /proc/self/limits format
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists