On 3/23/09, James Carlson <james.d.carl...@sun.com> wrote: > ольга крыжановская writes: > > Who closed this bug? This is *not* a duplicate of 6820733. 6820733 is > > for brandz and 6820737 is for the Solaris kernel. > > > I did. Fixing 6820733 implies bumping up the number of RT signals for > all, and the only known user is a Linux application, so I don't see a > point in having multiple RFEs outstanding.
One rfe was for the Linux emulation layer and one rfe was for the Solaris kernel. Separate entities with a dependency but they are separate reports. > If nobody needs more than 8 RT signals on regular (non-BrandZ) Solaris > -- and nobody has described such a need CERN search returns http://cernintranet.web.cern.ch/lists/devel/sysadmin/2006-April/028611.html: > ...I filed a rfe via our sun platin contract but after four weeks > the sun guy came back and said they have no resources to do it... Google returns http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-code/2007-April/002999.html > ...This reminds me of some commercial software which couldn't be ported to > Solaris because |RTSIG_MAX| was too low. > If you change something here _please_ _please_ _please_ bump RTSIG_MAX > to |16| or higher (Linux uses |32|).... >-- then why have a separate > RFE to request it? > > Would there be a point in bumping up the number of available RT > signals for regular Solaris alone, without addressing BrandZ? Yes. We wouldn't need a Linux emulation in this case. -- , _ _ , { \/`o;====- Olga Kryzhanovska -====;o`\/ } .----'-/`-/ olga.kryzhanov...@gmail.com \-`\-'----. `'-..-| / Solaris/BSD//C/C++ programmer \ |-..-'` /\/\ /\/\ `--` `--` _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list opensolaris-code@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
