On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 09:39:55AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Torsten Bögershausen tbo...@web.de writes:
Thanks for an interesting reading,
please allow a side question:
Could it be, that -1 == unlimited is Linux specific?
And therefore not 100% portable ?
And doesn't unlimited
On 2013-12-20 10.12, Jeff King wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 09:39:55AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Torsten Bögershausen tbo...@web.de writes:
Thanks for an interesting reading,
please allow a side question:
Could it be, that -1 == unlimited is Linux specific?
And therefore not 100%
On 2013-12-19 01.15, Jeff King wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 02:59:12PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
Yes, that is locally OK, but depending on how the caller behaves, we
might need to have an extra saved_errno dance here, which I didn't
want to get into...
Torsten Bögershausen tbo...@web.de writes:
Thanks for an interesting reading,
please allow a side question:
Could it be, that -1 == unlimited is Linux specific?
And therefore not 100% portable ?
And doesn't unlimited number of files call for trouble,
having the risk to starve the machine ?
Joey Hess j...@kitenet.net writes:
In sha1_file.c, when git is built on linux, it will use
getrlimit(RLIMIT_NOFILE). I've been deploying git binaries to some
unusual systems, like embedded NAS devices, and it seems some with older
kernels like 2.6.33 fail with fatal: cannot get
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Hmph, perhaps you are right. Like this?
Works for me.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
That is, does sysconf actually work on such a system (or does it need a
similar run-time fallback)? And either way, we should try falling back
to OPEN_MAX rather than 1 if we have it.
Interesting.
As far as the warning, I am not sure I see a point. The user
Jeff King wrote:
I wish we understood why getrlimit was failing. Returning EFAULT seems
like an odd choice if it is not implemented for the system. On such a
system, do the other fallbacks actually work? Would it work to do:
That is, does sysconf actually work on such a system (or does it
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
That is, does sysconf actually work on such a system (or does it need a
similar run-time fallback)? And either way, we should try falling back
to OPEN_MAX rather than 1 if we have it.
Interesting.
As far as the
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:50:24AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
8 --
static unsigned int get_max_fd_limit(void)
{
#ifdef RLIMIT_NOFILE
struct rlimit lim;
if (!getrlimit(RLIMIT_NOFILE, lim))
return
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
According to the POSIX quote above, it sounds like we could do:
#if defined (_SC_OPEN_MAX)
{
long max;
errno = 0;
max = sysconf(_SC_OPEN_MAX);
if (0 max) /* got the limit */
return max;
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 01:37:24PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
According to the POSIX quote above, it sounds like we could do:
#if defined (_SC_OPEN_MAX)
{
long max;
errno = 0;
max = sysconf(_SC_OPEN_MAX);
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 01:37:24PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
According to the POSIX quote above, it sounds like we could do:
#if defined (_SC_OPEN_MAX)
{
long max;
errno = 0;
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 02:59:12PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
Yes, that is locally OK, but depending on how the caller behaves, we
might need to have an extra saved_errno dance here, which I didn't
want to get into...
I think we are fine. The only
14 matches
Mail list logo
