Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:47:31 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: Cliff Wickman <cpw@sgi.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
       george anzinger <george@mvista.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] sys_setrlimit() in 2.6.16
Message-ID: <20060216094731.GA32676@elte.hu>
References: <20060214222417.GA8479@sgi.com> <20060216005826.4afc87ae.akpm@osdl.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20060216005826.4afc87ae.akpm@osdl.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1225
Lines: 31


* 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/