Re: [patch, 2.6.11-rc2] sched: RLIMIT_RT_CPU_RATIO feature

[Jack O'Quin]

[trimming the Cc: list]

> * Jack O'Quin <joq@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> Remember when I asked how you handle changes to sizeof(struct rusage)?
>> That was a serious question.  I hope there's a solution. [...]

Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> writes:
> what does any of what we've talking about have to do with struct rusage? 

Your previous message implied that "userspace" programmers don't
understand binary compatibility...

> you might ask yourself, 'why is this so, and why cannot the Linux guys
> apply pretty much any hack as e.g. userspace code might'

I was just demonstating that I do.

> " > Does getrusage() return anything for this?  How can a field be added
>   > to the rusage struct without breaking binary compatibility?  Can we
>   > assume that no programs ever use sizeof(struct rusage)?
>
>   rlimits are easily extended and there are no binary compatibility
>   worries. The kernel doesnt export the maximum towards userspace.
>   getrusage() will return the value on new kernels and will return 
>   -EINVAL on old kernels, so new userspace can deal with this 
>   accordingly. "
>
> (and here i meant getrlimit(), not getrusage() - getrusage() is not
> affected by the patch at all.)

Well, that was source of my question.

I had asked about rusage.  You said it did return a new value, but
that this was not a problem.  That made no sense to me.  Thank you for
clearing it up.

Certainly getrlimit() works OK.  I understood that already.
-- 
  joq
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/