This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Does e2fsprogs-1.26 work on mips?
- From: Theodore Tso <tytso at mit dot edu>
- To: Andrew Morton <akpm at zip dot com dot au>
- Cc: Theodore Tso <tytso at mit dot edu>, "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>,linux-mips at oss dot sgi dot com, linux kernel <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>,GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 01:54:40 -0500
- Subject: Re: Does e2fsprogs-1.26 work on mips?
- References: <20020323140728.A4306@lucon.org> <3C9D1C1D.E30B9B4B@zip.com.au> <20020323221627.A10953@lucon.org> <3C9D7A42.B106C62D@zip.com.au> <20020324012819.A13155@lucon.org> <20020325003159.A2340@thunk.org> <3C9EB8F6.247C7C3B@zip.com.au>
On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 09:43:18PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Theodore Tso wrote:
> >
> > And just to be clear ---- although in the past I've been really
> > annoyed when glibc has made what I've considered to be arbitrary
> > changes which have screwed ABI, compile-time, or link-time
> > compatibility, and have spoken out against it --- in this particular
> > case, I consider the fault to be purely the fault of the kernel
> > developers, so there's no need having the glibc folks get all
> > defensive....
>
> So... Does the kernel need fixing? If so, what would you
> recommend?
1) Created a new syscall for the unsinged setrlimit, not just for
getrlimit. This should have been done from the very beginning, IMHO.
2) If the old value of RLIM_INFINITY is passed to the old setrlimit,
translate it to the new value of RLIM_INFINITY. (This would not have
been strictly necessary of glibc wasn't playing RLIM_INIFITY capping
games; as it turns out, if you pass the "new" version of RLIM_INIFITY
to an "old" 2.2 kernel, the right thing happens. So there really is
no need for glibc to cap the limit of RLIM_INFINITY to the old value.)
3) RLIMIT_FILESIZE should not apply to block devices!!!
- Ted