[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BC58B85.1020204@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:31:49 +0200
From: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...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 03/24/2010 06:02 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 03/21/2010 07:38 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> Or even just _one_ system call that takes two pointers, and can do an
>> atomic replace-and-return-the-old-value, like 'sigaction()' does, ie
>> something like
>>
>> int prlimit64(pid, limit, const struct rlimit64 *new, struct rlimit64 *old);
>>
>> wouldn't that be a nice generic interface?
>
> Seconded. But should the limits be by default 64-bit even on 32-bit? I
> mean: switch 'struct limit' in signal_struct to 'struct rlimit64'? This
> would make the limits non-atomic on 32-bit. Oh, they are not already if
> reader wants both cur and max without any locks, but I'm not sure now
> what implications this will have (I haven't checked compilers, but I
> think a store of 00000001 0000000 in place of 00000000 ffffffff may
> result in a read of 00000001 ffffffff or alike). Or did I misunderstand you?
Maybe it is a silly question or you was just busy at that time?
thanks,
--
js
--
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