Re: [RFC] sys_setrlimit() in 2.6.16

[Ingo Molnar]

* Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxx>

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/