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: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
To: David Miller <davem at davemloft dot net>
Cc: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 22:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
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>

> 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.


Thanks,
Roland

Follow-Ups:
- Re: RFC: All glibc machine maintainers: Is " RLIM_INFINITY as((__rlim_t) -1)" OK?
  - From: H.J. Lu

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

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