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.
Signed-off-by: Carmelo Amoroso
--
On 3 November 2011 09:31, Carmelo AMOROSO 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 fixe
On 04/11/2011 13.50, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On 3 November 2011 09:31, Carmelo AMOROSO 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
On Friday 04 November 2011 08:50:02 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On 3 November 2011 09:31, Carmelo AMOROSO 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 defin
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 wrote:
> > > On several architectures __NR_ulimit syscall number is currently
> > > defined but it is remapped onto sy
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 09:31:48AM +0100, Carmelo AMOROSO 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.
On Thursday 17 November 2011 21:09:57 Rich Felker wrote:
> 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 wrote:
> > > > On several architectures __NR_ulimit sysc
On 17/11/2011 17.14, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 04 November 2011 08:50:02 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
> wrote:
>> On 3 November 2011 09:31, Carmelo AMOROSO
>> wrote:
>>> On several architectures __NR_ulimit syscall number is
>>> currently defined but it is remapped onto sys_ni_syscall, while
>
On 18/11/2011 21.02, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 09:31:48AM +0100, Carmelo AMOROSO 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.
On Wednesday 23 November 2011 11:22:04 Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
> On 17/11/2011 17.14, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Friday 04 November 2011 08:50:02 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> >> On 3 November 2011 09:31, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
> >>> On several architectures __NR_ulimit syscall number is
> >>>
On 27/11/2011 1.30, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 November 2011 11:22:04 Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
>> On 17/11/2011 17.14, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> On Friday 04 November 2011 08:50:02 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
>>> wrote:
On 3 November 2011 09:31, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
> On several
11 matches
Mail list logo