[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190826214151.GF14309@lenoir>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 23:41:51 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 31/38] rlimit: Rewrite non-sensical RLIMIT_CPU comment
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 09:09:18PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> The comment above the function which arms RLIMIT_CPU in the posix CPU timer
> code makes no sense at all. It claims that the kernel does not return an
> error code when it rejected the attempt to set RLIMIT_CPU. That's clearly
> bogus as the code does an error check and the rlimit is only set and
> activated when the permission checks are ok. In case of a rejection an
> appropriate error code is returned.
>
> This is a historical and outdated comment which got dragged along even when
> the rlimit handling code was rewritten.
>
> Replace it with an explanation why the setup function is not called when
> the rlimit value is RLIM_INFINITY and how the 'disarming' is handled.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>
Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists