On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 09:43:18PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Theodore Tso wrote:
> > And just to be clear ---- although in the past I've been really
> > annoyed when glibc has made what I've considered to be arbitrary
> > changes which have screwed ABI, compile-time, or link-time
> > compatibility, and have spoken out against it --- in this particular
> > case, I consider the fault to be purely the fault of the kernel
> > developers, so there's no need having the glibc folks get all
> > defensive....
> So... Does the kernel need fixing? If so, what would you
1) Created a new syscall for the unsinged setrlimit, not just for
getrlimit. This should have been done from the very beginning, IMHO.
2) If the old value of RLIM_INFINITY is passed to the old setrlimit,
translate it to the new value of RLIM_INFINITY. (This would not have
been strictly necessary of glibc wasn't playing RLIM_INIFITY capping
games; as it turns out, if you pass the "new" version of RLIM_INIFITY
to an "old" 2.2 kernel, the right thing happens. So there really is
no need for glibc to cap the limit of RLIM_INFINITY to the old value.)
3) RLIMIT_FILESIZE should not apply to block devices!!!