On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 09:40:37PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 11:56:11AM -0700, Andy Isaacson wrote:
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 12:45:47PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 06:59:18 -0400
Neil Horman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Currently, there exists
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 11:56:11AM -0700, Andy Isaacson wrote:
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 12:45:47PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 06:59:18 -0400
Neil Horman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Currently, there exists no method for a process to query the resource
limits of another
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 12:45:47PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 06:59:18 -0400
Neil Horman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Currently, there exists no method for a process to query the resource
limits of another process. They can be inferred via some mechanisms
but they cannot
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:35:38 EDT, Neil Horman said:
Hey again-
Andrew requested that I repost this cleanly, after running the patch
through checkpatch. As requested here it is with the changelog.
Currently, there exists no method for a process to query the resource
limits of another
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 04:09:26AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:35:38 EDT, Neil Horman said:
Hey again-
Andrew requested that I repost this cleanly, after running the patch
through checkpatch. As requested here it is with the changelog.
Currently, there
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 06:59:18 -0400
Neil Horman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Currently, there exists no method for a process to query the resource
limits of another process. They can be inferred via some mechanisms but they
cannot be explicitly determined. Given that this information can be
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:45:47 PDT, Andrew Morton said:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 06:59:18 -0400
Neil Horman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Currently, there exists no method for a process to query the resource
limits of another process. They can be inferred via some mechanisms but
they
cannot be
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 12:45:47PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 06:59:18 -0400
Neil Horman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Currently, there exists no method for a process to query the resource
limits of another process. They can be inferred via some mechanisms but
they
Hey again-
Andrew requested that I repost this cleanly, after running the patch
through checkpatch. As requested here it is with the changelog.
Currently, there exists no method for a process to query the resource
limits of another process. They can be inferred via some mechanisms but
Hey there-
Currently, there exists no method for a process to query the resource
limits of another process. They can be inferred via some mechanisms but they
cannot be explicitly determined. Given that this information can be usefull to
know during the debugging of an application, I've
On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 10:00 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
Hey there-
Currently, there exists no method for a process to query the resource
limits of another process. They can be inferred via some mechanisms but they
cannot be explicitly determined. Given that this information can be
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:00:44 EDT, Neil Horman said:
Hey there-
Currently, there exists no method for a process to query the resource
limits of another process. They can be inferred via some mechanisms but they
cannot be explicitly determined. Given that this information can be usefull
On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 12:47:38PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:00:44 EDT, Neil Horman said:
Hey there-
Currently, there exists no method for a process to query the resource
limits of another process. They can be inferred via some mechanisms but
they
Hi Neil,
+static struct limit_names lnames[RLIM_NLIMITS] = {
static const ...
may be better here.
Best Regards
Ingo Oeser
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 09:25:45PM +0200, Ingo Oeser wrote:
Hi Neil,
+static struct limit_names lnames[RLIM_NLIMITS] = {
static const ...
may be better here.
Best Regards
Ingo Oeser
No, objections, thats all read only data anyway. New patch attached
Regards
Neil
Signed-off-by:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 04:11:30PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
--- a/fs/proc/base.c
+++ b/fs/proc/base.c
@@ -323,6 +324,68 @@ static int proc_oom_score(struct task_struct *task, char
*buffer)
return sprintf(buffer, %lu\n, points);
}
+struct limit_names {
+ char *name;
+
On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 01:04:02AM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 04:11:30PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
--- a/fs/proc/base.c
+++ b/fs/proc/base.c
@@ -323,6 +324,68 @@ static int proc_oom_score(struct task_struct *task,
char *buffer)
return sprintf(buffer,
17 matches
Mail list logo
