From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A28466B0069 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 18:42:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 23:43:37 +0000 From: Alan Cox Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] tmpfs: support user quotas Message-ID: <20111107234337.1dc9d612@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20111107230712.GA25769@tango.0pointer.de> References: <1320614101.3226.5.camel@offbook> <20111107112952.GB25130@tango.0pointer.de> <1320675607.2330.0.camel@offworld> <20111107135823.3a7cdc53@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20111107225314.0e3976a6@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20111107230712.GA25769@tango.0pointer.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Lennart Poettering Cc: Kay Sievers , Davidlohr Bueso , Christoph Hellwig , Hugh Dickins , Andrew Morton , lkml , linux-mm@kvack.org On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 00:07:12 +0100 Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Mon, 07.11.11 22:53, Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk) wrote: > > > Per user would be quota, per process would be rlimit. Quite simple > > really, nice standard interfaces we've had for years. Various systems > > Uh, have you ever really looked at resource limits? Some of them are > per-user, not per-process, i.e. RLIMIT_NPROC. And this would just be > another one. NPROC is a bit of an oddity. And the standards have no idea how a resource limit hit for an fs would be reported, nor how an app installer would check for it. Quota on the other hand is defined behaviour. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org