From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84F07C36010 for ; Fri, 11 Apr 2025 09:03:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1F1A3CB5A4 for ; Fri, 11 Apr 2025 11:03:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from in-7.smtp.seeweb.it (in-7.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.7]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42F583C677D for ; Fri, 11 Apr 2025 11:02:50 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: in-7.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:2; helo=smtp-out2.suse.de; envelope-from=chrubis@suse.cz; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [IPv6:2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-7.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C46A2009C4 for ; Fri, 11 Apr 2025 11:02:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (unknown [10.150.64.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6F411F456; Fri, 11 Apr 2025 09:02:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1744362167; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=wdymslK/ahxhzvf1pu81EzjXSC2E2r9kqMWhouFIKwE=; b=VeN3UHtD39cbRMhkmaWWzc2000J/lxwvEuxbPhThZSVTW4ekLd1blY25PPRAoR6CG9l6OC e0LG0NNQu4bqB9Pyam1b2nSUGuGE0uoh3q6riw14uXSl5lXVs0hf06fPaWFw4i+AxC/7SA 6ibkMkwHP6pps39sKPyvPL5y2sz5kZU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1744362167; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=wdymslK/ahxhzvf1pu81EzjXSC2E2r9kqMWhouFIKwE=; b=kUBO9k4q8VUV93TS/XWqp/T4NpxdPQsOzsclNn1YcjSoodjVH0Dt0p7i5iSS1MYk34DyBa /gGjJxvfGr0yZNAQ== Authentication-Results: smtp-out2.suse.de; none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1744362167; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=wdymslK/ahxhzvf1pu81EzjXSC2E2r9kqMWhouFIKwE=; b=VeN3UHtD39cbRMhkmaWWzc2000J/lxwvEuxbPhThZSVTW4ekLd1blY25PPRAoR6CG9l6OC e0LG0NNQu4bqB9Pyam1b2nSUGuGE0uoh3q6riw14uXSl5lXVs0hf06fPaWFw4i+AxC/7SA 6ibkMkwHP6pps39sKPyvPL5y2sz5kZU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1744362167; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=wdymslK/ahxhzvf1pu81EzjXSC2E2r9kqMWhouFIKwE=; b=kUBO9k4q8VUV93TS/XWqp/T4NpxdPQsOzsclNn1YcjSoodjVH0Dt0p7i5iSS1MYk34DyBa /gGjJxvfGr0yZNAQ== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A713B13886; Fri, 11 Apr 2025 09:02:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id J1jwJrfa+Gf8HgAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Fri, 11 Apr 2025 09:02:47 +0000 Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 11:03:13 +0200 From: Cyril Hrubis To: Lu Fei Message-ID: References: <20250314044257.1673303-1-lufei@uniontech.com> <20250409074906.128290-1-lufei@uniontech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.30 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[99.99%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[6]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[suse.cz:email,imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:helo] X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-7.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2] unshare03: set nr_open with sizeof(long)*8 X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: ltp , viro Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Hi! > >unsigned int sysctl_nr_open __read_mostly = 1024*1024; > >unsigned int sysctl_nr_open_min = BITS_PER_LONG; > >/* our min() is unusable in constant expressions ;-/ */ > >#define __const_min(x, y) ((x) < (y) ? (x) : (y)) > >unsigned int sysctl_nr_open_max = > > __const_min(INT_MAX, ~(size_t)0/sizeof(void *)) & -BITS_PER_LONG; > >... > > >Then we need a filedescriptor that is >= 64 and set the nr_open to 64. > > I'm using sizeof(long)*8 is because I was thinking only set > filediscriptor >= BITS_PER_LONG and then set nr_open = BITS_PER_LONG > could make EMFILE happen. Less than BITS_PER_LONG would trigger other > error than EMFILE. > > Am I misunderstood Cyril? The actual patch is fine. What they are asking for is a better description. The patch description should tell _why_ the change is needed. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp