[Lsb-infrastructure] [Bug 2039] Csrconly field should be dropped

bugzilla-daemon at linux-foundation.org bugzilla-daemon at linux-foundation.org
Fri Sep 26 07:43:38 PDT 2008


http://bugs.linuxbase.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2039





--- Comment #15 from Denis Silakov <silakov at ispras.ru>  2008-09-26 07:43:37 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Hmmm, this raises some questions I guess.  The RLIMIT values have not been in
> LSB. If they were added, we need some sort of definition of them - and should
> ask if other, newer, resource limits should also be added. That said, the
> specification text currently does mention RLIMIT_MEMLOCK in the new mremap
> interface, which thus is referring to an unspecified value.
> 
> Most of the IN6 constants are in POSIX and thus no question, but some are not.
> raising again the question of "do we need some kind of wording?".
> 

The latest POSIX draft contains all IN6 constants and macros except
IN6_ARE_ADDR_EQUAL, which is rather self-explained; do we want to add some
wordings for it?

Actually we suggest to create a separate bug to track RLIMIT* issues
(additional constants, maybe some more descriptions) and to close this one.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.


More information about the lsb-infrastructure mailing list