From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 01:55:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 01:55:04 -0500 Received: from SNAP.THUNK.ORG ([216.175.175.173]:21011 "EHLO snap.thunk.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 01:54:56 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 01:54:40 -0500 From: Theodore Tso To: Andrew Morton Cc: Theodore Tso , "H . J . Lu" , linux-mips@oss.sgi.com, linux kernel , GNU C Library Subject: Re: Does e2fsprogs-1.26 work on mips? Message-ID: <20020326015440.A12162@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Tso , Andrew Morton , "H . J . Lu" , linux-mips@oss.sgi.com, linux kernel , GNU C Library In-Reply-To: <20020323140728.A4306@lucon.org> <3C9D1C1D.E30B9B4B@zip.com.au> <20020323221627.A10953@lucon.org> <3C9D7A42.B106C62D@zip.com.au> <20020324012819.A13155@lucon.org> <20020325003159.A2340@thunk.org> <3C9EB8F6.247C7C3B@zip.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 > recommend? 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!!! - Ted