Re: sbrk(2) broken

Robert Watson wrote:
> to break (tm), killing of other large processes, etc.  To be clear,
> in the new world order, instead of getting NULL back from malloc(3),
> SIGKILL is delivered to large processes.

I'm not sure that I like that very much.  At least the way that
it has been explained here so correct me if I misunderstood.

I have long lived processes that continuously handle very valuable
data and potentially get very large (several GB).  I'd like that
process to be able to make a rational decision about what happens to its
memory contents when an allocation fails rather than having the
proverbial rug pulled out from under it.  Rug pulling at any point 
can cost an annual salary or two.

Ian

--
Ian Freislich