Re: lwp resource limit

[Mindaugas Rasiukevicius <rmind%netbsd.org@localhost>]

Matt Thomas <matt%3am-software.com@localhost> wrote:
> 
> On Jun 12, 2012, at 8:26 PM, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> 
> > On Jun 13,  2:15am, yamt%mwd.biglobe.ne.jp@localhost (YAMAMOTO Takashi) 
> > wrote:
> > -- Subject: Re: lwp resource limit
> > 
> > | > Can you explain what you mean by api incompatible? It is used in
> > | > getrlimit the same way we use it, how can it be different?
> > | 
> > | it's semantics (what's counted for) is different, isn't it?
> > 
> > I don't know, the pages I looked don't offer details.
> 
> The nice thing about our semantics is you can disable threaded programs
> by setting lwp count to 0 but still allow non-threaded programs to run.

Yes, but that is not the point.  I think what yamt means is that we should
check whether our approach (i.e. the way accounting is done) is compatible
with QNX and if not, then either rename the limit or make it compatible.

Would somebody be able to check?  Sean?

-- 
Mindaugas