[PATCH] libc: do not rely upon ulimit kernel syscall.

2011-11-03 Thread Carmelo AMOROSO
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 --

Re: [PATCH] libc: do not rely upon ulimit kernel syscall.

2011-11-04 Thread Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
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

Re: [PATCH] libc: do not rely upon ulimit kernel syscall.

2011-11-04 Thread Carmelo AMOROSO
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

Re: [PATCH] libc: do not rely upon ulimit kernel syscall.

2011-11-17 Thread Mike Frysinger
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

Re: [PATCH] libc: do not rely upon ulimit kernel syscall.

2011-11-17 Thread Rich Felker
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

Re: [PATCH] libc: do not rely upon ulimit kernel syscall.

2011-11-18 Thread Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
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.

Re: [PATCH] libc: do not rely upon ulimit kernel syscall.

2011-11-19 Thread Mike Frysinger
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

Re: [PATCH] libc: do not rely upon ulimit kernel syscall.

2011-11-23 Thread Carmelo AMOROSO
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 >

Re: [PATCH] libc: do not rely upon ulimit kernel syscall.

2011-11-23 Thread Carmelo AMOROSO
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.

Re: [PATCH] libc: do not rely upon ulimit kernel syscall.

2011-11-26 Thread Mike Frysinger
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 > >>>

Re: [PATCH] libc: do not rely upon ulimit kernel syscall.

2011-11-29 Thread Carmelo AMOROSO
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