On Tue, 1 Apr 2014 17:12:50 -0400 KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2014-04-01 at 15:51 -0400, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > >> >> So, I personally like 0 byte per default. > >> > > >> > If by this you mean 0 bytes == unlimited, then I agree. It's less harsh > >> > then removing it entirely. So instead of removing the limit we can just > >> > set it by default to 0, and in newseg() if shm_ctlmax == 0 then we don't > >> > return EINVAL if the passed size is great (obviously), otherwise, if the > >> > user _explicitly_ set it via sysctl then we respect that. Andrew, do you > >> > agree with this? If so I'll send a patch. > >> > >> Yes, my 0 bytes mean unlimited. I totally agree we shouldn't remove the knob > >> entirely. > > > > Hmmm so 0 won't really work because it could be weirdly used to disable > > shm altogether... we cannot go to some negative value either since we're > > dealing with unsigned, and cutting the range in half could also hurt > > users that set the limit above that. So I was thinking of simply setting > > SHMMAX to ULONG_MAX and be done with it. Users can then set it manually > > if they want a smaller value. > > > > Makes sense? > > I don't think people use 0 for disabling. but ULONG_MAX make sense to me too. Distros could have set it to [U]LONG_MAX in initscripts ten years ago - less phone calls, happier customers. And they could do so today. But they haven't. What are the risks of doing this? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>