[PATCH] libc: do not rely upon ulimit kernel syscall.

Mike Frysinger vapier at gentoo.org
Sun Nov 20 07:31:55 UTC 2011


On Thursday 17 November 2011 21:09:57 Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:14:10AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Friday 04 November 2011 08:50:02 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> > > On 3 November 2011 09:31, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
> > > > On several architectures __NR_ulimit syscall number is currently
> > > > defined but it is remapped onto sys_ni_syscall, while on other
> > > > architectures they are not longer defined.
> > > > So use {get,set}rlimit only to implement ulimit interface.
> > > > 
> > > > It fixes LTP ulimit01 test case.
> > > 
> > > What about fixing the kernel instead to not define numbers for the
> > > unavailable stuff?
> > 
> > yeah, that makes more sense to me.  if your headers say you have the
> > ulimit syscall, we shouldn't bother trying to emulate it in userspace. 
> > fix the kernel and be done.
> 
> I really have to ask... WHY? Why bother with extra code complexity and
> maintenance burden to support using an ancient, deprecated syscall for
> a deprecated nonstandard userspace function when it can be cleanly and
> universally emulated in terms of a modern, universally-supported
> standard function?

your argument has nothing to do with the topic at hand

ulimit() is part of POSIX, although marked as obsolete in Issue 7.  so if you 
don't want it, don't enable UCLIBC_SUSV4_LEGACY.

taking all of that into consideration, i don't know what the point of your e-
mail is here.
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/uclibc/attachments/20111120/9cbabf37/attachment.asc>


More information about the uClibc mailing list