On 18 Apr 2011, at 15:01, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 04:46:08PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>
>> That means getting more people to look at the patch, which could be hard.
>> The problem is that, if you wait, they'll only squeal when the code is
>> close to going in, and you co
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 04:46:08PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> That means getting more people to look at the patch, which could be hard.
> The problem is that, if you wait, they'll only squeal when the code is
> close to going in, and you could find yourself set back a long way. A
> good firs
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 22:34:53 +0100
Tony Ibbs wrote:
> This patch provides mechanisms for setting an absolute maximum message
> size at compile time, and a per-device maximum at runtime.
It seems like a good step in the right direction. Do you really need to
add a bunch more configuration option
On 22 Mar 2011, at 19:36, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> - Does anything bound the size of a message fed into the kernel with
> write()? I couldn't find it. It seems like an application could
> consume arbitrary amounts of kernel memory.
This patch provides mechanisms for setting an absolute maxim
