From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755080AbZKIJ0q (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Nov 2009 04:26:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755007AbZKIJ0p (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Nov 2009 04:26:45 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:49828 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755001AbZKIJ0o (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Nov 2009 04:26:44 -0500 Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 10:26:29 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jiri Slaby Cc: Neil Horman , Stephen Rothwell , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, marcin.slusarz@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] extend get/setrlimit to support setting rlimits external to a process (v7) Message-ID: <20091109092629.GA26890@elte.hu> References: <20091102152520.GG23776@elte.hu> <20091102175407.GE4075@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20091102185137.GA28803@elte.hu> <20091103002355.GB19891@localhost.localdomain> <20091104112632.GA9243@elte.hu> <20091105204843.GA2980@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20091106092600.GC22505@elte.hu> <4AF7D8C2.60807@gmail.com> <20091109090143.GB24020@elte.hu> <4AF7DF41.5080100@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AF7DF41.5080100@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Jiri Slaby wrote: > On 11/09/2009 10:01 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > So i guess renaming setrlimit to do_setrlimit and adding the syscall > > from Neil's patch should bring the two series into sync, right? > > Looks like that. I have a nit, 32-bit programs on 64-bit x86 won't > work. I think we should add compat handlers for ia32 emulation too? Yeah. Ingo