Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:47:31 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] sys_setrlimit() in 2.6.16 |
| |
* Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> 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 wrong.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |