On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:14:10AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Friday 04 November 2011 08:50:02 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > > On 3 November 2011 09:31, Carmelo AMOROSO <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On several architectures __NR_ulimit syscall number is currently > > > defined but it is remapped onto sys_ni_syscall, while on other > > > architectures they are not longer defined. > > > So use {get,set}rlimit only to implement ulimit interface. > > > > > > It fixes LTP ulimit01 test case. > > > > What about fixing the kernel instead to not define numbers for the > > unavailable stuff? > > yeah, that makes more sense to me. if your headers say you have the ulimit > syscall, we shouldn't bother trying to emulate it in userspace. fix the > kernel > and be done.
I really have to ask... WHY? Why bother with extra code complexity and maintenance burden to support using an ancient, deprecated syscall for a deprecated nonstandard userspace function when it can be cleanly and universally emulated in terms of a modern, universally-supported standard function? Rich _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
