[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081126071834.GF26036@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 08:18:34 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
containers@...ts.osdl.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
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
* Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> writes:
>
> > i dont see the point of the complexity you are advocating. 99.9% of
> > the users run a unique PID space.
>
> I'm not advocating complexity. I'm advocating using the same APIs as
> the rest of the kernel, for doing the same functions.
>
> > Tracing is about keeping stuff simple. On containers we could also
> > trace the namespace ID (is there an easy ID for the namespace, as an
> > easy extension to the very nice PID concept that Unix introduced
> > decades ago?) and be done with it.
>
> I don't really care about the pid namespace in this context.
>
> I am just asking that we compare a different field in the task
> struct.
>
> I am asking that we don't accumulate new users of an old crufty bug
> prone API, for no good reason.
i dont disagree about the change, but i'm curious, what's bug-prone
about current->pid? It certainly worked quite well for the first 15
years.
Ingo
--
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