This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: RFC: All glibc machine maintainers: Is " RLIM_INFINITY as((__rlim_t) -1)" OK?

From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
Cc: David Miller <davem at davemloft dot net>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 06:33:53 -0700
Subject: Re: RFC: All glibc machine maintainers: Is " RLIM_INFINITY as((__rlim_t) -1)" OK?
References: <CAMe9rOrVdp=Vq4RKX3Uh71E1+_UMJADgo0ahTaMBYgEj6OncBQ@mail.gmail.com><20120518.233322.1558415278934298189.davem@davemloft.net><20120519051748.5F7C42C083@topped-with-meat.com>

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com> wrote:
>> and I notice that i386 has bit of code encapsulating the rlimit calls
>> which translates between RLIM_INFINITY and "RLIM_INFINITY >> 1" in
>> certain situations.
>
> It would be nice if someone could research the details and history of that
> (both in libc and on the kernel side) and follow up here for our archived
> edification.

See:

http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0007.3/0582.html
http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0203.2/0716.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-glibc/2000-10/msg00077.html

I think RLIM_INFINITY got changed from signed to unsigned
or something like that.

-- 
H.J.

References:
- RFC: All glibc machine maintainers: Is " RLIM_INFINITY as ((__rlim_t)-1)" OK?
  - From: H.J. Lu
- Re: RFC: All glibc machine maintainers: Is " RLIM_INFINITY as((__rlim_t) -1)" OK?
  - From: David Miller
- Re: RFC: All glibc machine maintainers: Is " RLIM_INFINITY as((__rlim_t) -1)" OK?
  - From: Roland McGrath

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]