Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:58:56 +0200 From: Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.kn-bremen.de> To: Alexander Best <alexbestms@math.uni-muenster.de> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.kn-bremen.de> Subject: Re: nspluginwrapper patch for testing (was: Re: flash10 vs f10) Message-ID: <20090630185856.GA41198@triton.kn-bremen.de> In-Reply-To: <permail-200906301838491e86ffa800001d04-a_best01@message-id.uni-muenster.de> References: <200906301828.n5UISAd0035828@triton.kn-bremen.de> <permail-200906301838491e86ffa800001d04-a_best01@message-id.uni-muenster.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 08:38:49PM +0200, Alexander Best wrote:
> i'm running compat.linux.osrelease: 2.6.16 and r195173 (CURRENT).
>
> yep. the warning comes up if a users stacksize is limited < 32M. flash works
> great and the HD button isn't causing any problems.
>
> maybe it's possible to ad something like
>
> if ulimit < 32m then don't change ulimit and prinf("not setting new ulimit due
> to stacksize limitation").
>
> something like that....
Well I just redirected the (possible) error message to /dev/null in
the new version since the main point of this ulimit'ing is to get
rid of a too high limit that can exhibit a flash bug. So If the
limit is already lower that shouldn't cause a problem unless maybe
when it is _very_ low indeed...
Cheers,
Juergen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090630185856.GA41198>