On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 12:20:58PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
quoted text
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > 
> > please pull the writable limits tree below.

quoted text
> As a result, I ended up looking at the writable limits only today.
> 
> And I'm not entirely happy. For example, I absolutely _detest_ seeing new 
> compat code for a feature that was just added. My immediate reaction is 
> "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?". 
> It's really annoying.
> 
> Why doesn't the new set/getprlimit things just take a pointer to a 
> well-defined pair of 64-bit values? Why is there any compat cruft at all 
> there? That is beyond insane. Just make the user level interface work 
> right in the first place, instead of adding crazy compat crap. This is 
> _not_ a legacy interface.

It's a perfect opportunity to introduce getrlimit64(2), setrlimit64(2)
_without_ involving /proc, without all bugs in setrlimit(2), without
compat code, with all resources equal across arches, and, optionally,
with infinity setting clearly separate from value (useful for C/R).

Pity, we will have config option for 64-bit internal rlimits.

	Alexey, who detests /proc/self/limits format
--
unsubscribe notice
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/