[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-kernel
Subject:    Re: can't mlockall() more than 128MB, is this a kernel limitiation ?
From:       David Gould <dg () suse ! com>
Date:       2000-08-07 1:31:39
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sun, Aug 06, 2000 at 03:04:01PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > No! No sysctl, thank you. Comment clearly says it is bogus, and now it
> > even hurts. Just delete the check.
> 
> Without a check like that people will crash the machine and come and rant on
> here.

Hmmm, I guess we need to filter those bad IE commands too ;-)

Seriously, this check reminds me of the old days when VMS had a hard limit to
the amount of memory one process could have. We database implementers
thought this was a bug. Ultimately DEC agreed and removed the limit. Funny
thing, NT, when it came out years later, had the same silly limit and we
database implementors still thought it was a bug. And even MS fixed it
finally.

This kind of hard coded limit done for "the users protection" is really
patronizing: "We know better than you where you want to go today".

If as OS implementors, we cannot anticipate every use of a system, we at
least should not prohibit some uses arbitrarily.

Sorry for the rant ...

-dg

-- 
David Gould                                                 dg@suse.com
SuSE, Inc.,  580 2cd St. #210,  Oakland, CA 94607          510.628.3380
Shut up, be happy.  The conveniences you demanded are now mandatory.
           -- Jello Biafra

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

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]