Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:51:59 +0530 >> Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> David Rientjes wrote: >>> Yes, I prefer 0 as well and had that in a series in the Lost World >>> of my earlier memory/RSS controller patches. I feel now that 0 is >>> a bit confusing, we don't use 0 to mean unlimited, unless we >>> treat the memory.limit_in_bytes value as boolean. 0 is false, >>> meaning there is no limit, > 0 is true, which means the limit >>> is set and the value is specified to the value read out. >> I prefer 0 than -1, too > > Remember, that we may use resource counters for other control groups > 0 would make ore sense, like for numfile CG. 0 can mean that this > group is not allowed to open any files. Treating 0 as unlimited for > some CGs and as 0 for others is a mess. > I disagree, numfile CG using 0 will not work, cause you'll not be able to do anything with 0, you can't even cat the numfile.limit file; for that matter anything with 0 will not work. You'll always exceed the limit. Setting 0 to mean unlimited might make sense. -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers