Hi,
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 02:16:12PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Linux' notion of nice values is already not
> really POSIX for root :) (POSIX doesn't define negative nice values).
It's been a while; but I'm almost confident that according to my last
reading of the POSIX man pages, the Lin
Svante Signell, on Thu 01 Sep 2016 12:44:04 +0200, wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 14:16 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Svante Signell, on Wed 31 Aug 2016 14:10:22 +0200, wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I would expect values [-20,19] to be OK converted to [5,44] with
> > > #define NICE_TO_MACH_PRIORIT
On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 14:16 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Svante Signell, on Wed 31 Aug 2016 14:10:22 +0200, wrote:
> >
> >
> > I would expect values [-20,19] to be OK converted to [5,44] with
> > #define NICE_TO_MACH_PRIORITY(nice) ((nice) + 25) from hurd/hurd/resource.h
> > and
> > #define i
Svante Signell, on Wed 31 Aug 2016 14:10:22 +0200, wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 13:51 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Svante Signell, on Wed 31 Aug 2016 13:42:58 +0200, wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Which is the original bug then?
> > You didn't say what application you are actually trying to fix,
On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 13:51 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Svante Signell, on Wed 31 Aug 2016 13:42:58 +0200, wrote:
> >
> >
> > Which is the original bug then?
> You didn't say what application you are actually trying to fix, but the
> issue you have shown is that task_priority returns permissi
Svante Signell, on Wed 31 Aug 2016 13:42:58 +0200, wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 13:28 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Svante Signell, on Wed 31 Aug 2016 13:24:34 +0200, wrote:
> > > > Re-read your test again: it requests nice -19, i.e. something which is
> > > > reserved to root. No wonder you
On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 13:28 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Svante Signell, on Wed 31 Aug 2016 13:24:34 +0200, wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Re-read your test again: it requests nice -19, i.e. something which is
> > > reserved to root. No wonder you are getting a permission denied.
> > Explain please, I
Svante Signell, on Wed 31 Aug 2016 13:24:34 +0200, wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 12:58 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Svante Signell, on Wed 31 Aug 2016 12:35:26 +0200, wrote:
> > >
> > > The attached patch changes this fixing the previous:
> > > check_setpriority: can't set priority: Permissi
On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 12:58 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Svante Signell, on Wed 31 Aug 2016 12:35:26 +0200, wrote:
> >
> > The attached patch changes this fixing the previous:
> > check_setpriority: can't set priority: Permission denied
> >
> > - prierr = __task_priority (task, NICE_TO_MAC
Svante Signell, on Wed 31 Aug 2016 12:35:26 +0200, wrote:
> The attached patch changes this fixing the previous:
> check_setpriority: can't set priority: Permission denied
>
> - prierr = __task_priority (task, NICE_TO_MACH_PRIORITY (prio), 1);
> + prierr = __task_priority (task, NICE_T
Hi,
Attached is a patch for the call of __task_priority() in
sysdeps/mach/hurd/setpriority.c. According to setpriority(2) and POSIX the nice
value should be per-process not per-thread.
According to: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/getpriori
ty.html
The nice value set with
11 matches
Mail list logo
