On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Jovi Zhang wrote: > 2011/8/23 Oleg Nesterov : >> On 08/22, Pádraig Brady wrote: >>> >>> On 08/21/2011 11:36 PM, Neil Horman wrote: >>> > Concur.  The comment should be changed >>> > Neil >>> > >>> > Oleg Nesterov wrote: >>> > >>> >> On 08/21, Oleg Nesterov wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 08/21, bookjovi@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> For non-pipe case, limit 0 also means drop the coredump, so just put >>> >>>> the zero limit check at do_coredump function begining. >>> >>> >>> >>> Neil, what do you think? Should we change the code or the comment? >>> >> >>> >> Personally I think we should fix the comment. I think RLIMIT_CORE >>> >> doesn't apply in this case, limit == 1 check is very special. And >>> >> this is what linux always did, except between 725eae32 and 898b374a. >>> >>> Sorry for jumping in late here. >>> I would really like `ulimit -c 0` to completely disable core dumps, >>> including not running core_pattern, as I also mentioned here: >>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apport/+bug/62511 >>> I noticed this in a script where ctrl-\ was taking a long >>> time to be registered as the core_pattern was run unconditionally. >> >> May be. As I said, I do not really know and personally I agree with >> everything. My only point was, this is not the bug, this is what we >> always did. >> >> This is up to Neil, I think. >> >> Oleg. >> >> > Well, so here have two questions. > 1) That comments "but a limit of 0 skips the dump" definitely is wrong > right now, it don't match with reality. > 2) In ispipe case, core limit 0 should skip the dump or not? this need > more discussion. >    from pipe coredump point of view, core limit is irrelevant, it > doesn't write to file system. >    from user point of view, there will be a lot of core files if we > let core limit 0 create core file, user might be boring. > > I fix the comments part by below patch(thanks Oleg's comments), please > use attachment patch when merge. > Patch attached.