[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080222093752.09dbfc53@core>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:37:52 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, roland@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: tty && pid problems
> > I've added locks in my test tree and now I've finally got -mm to build
> > will do some testing then push more stuff upstream
>
> Thanks. At the tty layer that was probably me.
> Most of the instances already appear to be nested in some other kind of
> locking, but that doesn't make no additional locking correct or ensure
> that it will give a uniform result.
Fortunately your pid struct is ref counted so not too hard to sort out.
Need to look at procfs but at worst tty needs to export a function which
returns a reference bumped pid struct to people who stick their nose in
from outside.
Alan
--
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