On 09/26/2015 02:11 AM, Aleksa Sarai wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 09:42:38AM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote: >>> Does it make sense for the PIDs controller to allow a user to set a >>> limit of 0? Since we don't cancel attaches, a limit of 0 doesn't >>> affect anything (nothing stops attaches, and you need to have a >>> process in the PIDs cgroup in order for fork()s to be affected by the >>> limit). So I think that attempting to set pid.limit to 0 should return >>> an -EINVAL. >> >> I don't know. Why does it matter? > > Well, it might be confusing that a limit of `0` is not different from > a limit of `1`. Especially since someone might think that a limit of > `0` means "no processes AT ALL", which is wrong. Although, I guess > they should've just RTFM'd in that case. I personally would have parsed a value of 0 as "unlimited" -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
