[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1abbnc8ff.fsf@frodo.ebiederm.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:23:16 -0800
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
containers@...ts.osdl.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, srostedt@...hat.com,
Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ftrace: add function tracing to single thread
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> writes:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
>>
>>
>
> I'm speechless too.
I'm a bit tired so probably am pushing to hard.
At the same time I don't see a single reason not to use
struct pid for what it was designed for. Identifying tasks.
pid_t's really only belong at the border.
I can see in the tracer when grabbing numbers you might
not be able to follow pointers. For that I see justification
for using task->pid. For the comparison I just don't see it.
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