From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261216AbVANHFN (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:05:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261536AbVANHFN (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:05:13 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:27114 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261216AbVANHFJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:05:09 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:04:23 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Matt Mackall Cc: paul@linuxaudiosystems.com, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, lkml@s2y4n2c.de, rlrevell@joe-job.com, arjanv@redhat.com, joq@io.com, chrisw@osdl.org, hch@infradead.org, mingo@elte.hu, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@kolivas.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] [request for inclusion] Realtime LSM Message-Id: <20050113230423.3b14fa33.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20050114065701.GG2940@waste.org> References: <1105669451.5402.38.camel@npiggin-nld.site> <200501140240.j0E2esKG026962@localhost.localdomain> <20050113191237.25b3962a.akpm@osdl.org> <20050114065701.GG2940@waste.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Matt Mackall wrote: > > The closest thing to concensus I've seen yet was a new rlimit for > scheduling with code from Chris Wright. hmm, yes. It doesn't feel like an rlimity thing to me, unless the rlimit actually _limits_ something. Say, minimum permissible nice level. But scheduling policy sounds more like a capability than an rlimit. > We really ought not get in > the habit of adding new rlimits though. How come? It's a real pita that the standard shells don't appear to have a way of setting an unknown rlimit. But what else?