[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1myt0n0om.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:42:33 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] teach set_special_pids() to use struct pid
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru> writes:
> On 11/26, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru> writes:
>>
>> > - set_special_pids(1, 1);
>> > + if (current->nsproxy != &init_nsproxy) {
>> > + get_nsproxy(&init_nsproxy);
>> > + switch_task_namespaces(current, &init_nsproxy);
>> > + }
>>
>> Is there a reason for moving this hunk of code?
>>
>> I don't see one as set_special_pids does everything with either
>> struct pid or global pid values. And attach_pid and detach_pid
>> don't care.
>
> No particular reason, except "keep related code together".
>
> There was another minor reason. Without the next patch we are doing find_pid(1).
> This is correct, we scan the global namespace, but still it looks a bit tidier
> to switch namespace first, so we could use find_vpid() in unlikely case we need
> it.
True. I just pointed it out because it seemed an unnecessary chunk.
Regardless it is harmless either way.
Acked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Eric
-
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