Re: [PATCH 2.6.13-rc6 1/2] New Syscall: get rlimits of any process

From: Wieland Gmeiner (e8607062_at_student.tuwien.ac.at)
Date: 08/16/05

  • Next message: Zachary Amsden: "Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Split host arch headers for UML's benefit" 
    To: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Date:	Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:34:34 +0200

    On Sat, 2005-08-13 at 15:11 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
    > On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 07:48:22PM +0200, Wieland Gmeiner wrote:
    > > @@ -294,3 +294,4 @@ ENTRY(sys_call_table)
    > > .long sys_inotify_init
    > > .long sys_inotify_add_watch
    > > .long sys_inotify_rm_watch
    > > + .long sys_getprlimit
    >
    > Please follow the proper kernel coding style when writing new kernel
    > code...

    Hm, Documentation/CodingStyle suggests using descriptive names, so
    something like getrlimit(...)/getrlimit_per_process(pid_t pid, ...)
    would be more appropriate?

    I thought getrlimit(...)/getprlimit(pid_t pid, ...) would be a good
    choice as getgid(void)/getpgid(pid_t pid) already exists in Linux which
    have the same naming scheme.

    Or would something like
    getrlimit/getrlimitpid (like wait(void)/waitpid(pid)) or
    getrlimit/getrlimit2 (like getpgrp(void)/getpgrp2(pid) in HP-UX)
    be preferred?

    What would you suggest?

    Thanks,
    Wieland

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  • Next message: Zachary Amsden: "Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Split host arch headers for UML's benefit"

    Relevant Pages