sbrk(2) broken

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

In message <20080107095853.GR947 at server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>, Peter Jeremy writes:

>>This is a non-starter, if SIGDANGER is to have any effect, all
>>processes that use malloc(3) should react to it.
>
>This depends on what SIGDANGER is supposed to indicate.  IMO, a single
>signal is inadequate - you need a "free memory is less than desirable,
>please reduce memory use if possible" and one (or maybe several levels
>of) "memory is really short, if you're not important, please die".

That's what I have been advocating for the last 10 years...

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk at FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.