Jonathan Nieder venit, vidit, dixit 13.09.2017 21:20: > Ramsay Jones wrote: > >> On cygwin (and MinGW), the 'ulimit' built-in bash command does not have >> the desired effect of limiting the resources of new processes, at least >> for the stack and file descriptors. However, it always returns success >> and leads to several test prerequisites being erroneously set to true. >> >> Add a check for cygwin and MinGW to the prerequisite expressions, using >> 'uname -s', and return false instead of (indirectly) using 'ulimit'. >> This affects the prerequisite expressions for the ULIMIT_STACK_SIZE, >> CMDLINE_LIMIT and ULIMIT_FILE_DESCRIPTORS prerequisites. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ramsay Jones <ram...@ramsayjones.plus.com> >> --- >> t/t1400-update-ref.sh | 11 ++++++++++- >> t/t6120-describe.sh | 1 - >> t/t7004-tag.sh | 1 - >> t/test-lib.sh | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++-- >> 4 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> > > Thanks. > > An alternative would be to do some more explicit feature-based test > like using "ulimit" to set a limit and then reading back the limit in > a separate process, but that feels like overkill.
It's still not clear whether these limits would be in effect or just reported. Rather than checking uname -s in several places, I think we should just define ulimit to be false in one place, or rather set the prerequisite there. Michael
