[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1174055467.3397.17.camel@raven.themaw.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 23:31:07 +0900
From: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: sukadev@...ibm.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Cedric Le Goater <clg@...ibm.com>,
Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>,
Serge Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>,
Herbert Poetzl <herbert@...hfloor.at>,
containers@...ts.osdl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Replace pid_t in autofs with struct pid reference
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 05:32 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, sukadev@...ibm.com wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ibm.com>
> >> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Replace pid_t in autofs with struct pid reference.
> >>
> >> Make autofs container-friendly by caching struct pid reference rather
> >> than pid_t and using pid_nr() to retreive a task's pid_t.
> >>
> >> ChangeLog:
> >> - Fix Eric Biederman's comments - Use find_get_pid() to hold a
> >> reference to oz_pgrp and release while unmounting; separate out
> >> changes to autofs and autofs4.
> >
> > What changes to autofs4?
> > Do you intend this change to be made for autofs4 also?
> > Perhaps you expected me to do them, in which case you probably should
> > ask me to do the patch.
>
> The review history goes something like this.
> - That's a big patch why are you touching autofs and autofs4 at the
> same time?
> <split>
> - Hmm. That change in the autofs4 patch looks fishy.
> <patch postponed until the issue was addressed>
>
> autofs4 uses pids more extensively than autofs and so the change is
> correspondingly larger.
>
> If you would like to look at what it would take to get autofs4 to only
> store values as struct pid * instead of storing pid_t that would be great.
> But for the most part I this is a massive global change that those of us
> pushing it are responsible for changing as fixing up as much of the code
> as we can, as is usual kernel practice.
How about you send over the autofs4 bit and I'll have a look (the autofs
patch looked fine). That would save me a bit of time and if there are
any changes needed I can send an updated patch for you guys to review. I
don't think autofs4 uses pids differently, in principle, than autofs so
it "should" be straight forward.
Ian
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists