[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49741F14.80808@zytor.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:35:00 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
CC: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "SergeE.Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] autofs: fix the wrong usage of the deprecated task_pgrp_nr()
Ian Kent wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 08:34 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> parse_options(&pgid) sets pgid = task_pgrp_nr() which uses the global
>> namespace. This is wrong, we use this pgid to find "struct pid" in the
>> current's namespace. Change parse_options() to use task_pgrp_vnr().
>>
>> Also do s/task_pgrp_nr/task_pgrp_vnr/ in the debugging printks.
>> checkpatch.pl complains about "line over 80 characters", but it should
>> blame the cuurent code, not the patch.
>
> This changelog entry doesn't really have anything that I can use to work
> out if this change might introduce regressions.
>
> It would be helpful to me if you could include:
> 1) A brief statement about what your trying to achieve and why.
> 2) The reason why task_pgrp_nr() has changed to task_pgrp_vnr() since
> you made the change (that is someone working on pid namespaces) to
> task_pgrp_nr().
> 3) Why you believe this change won't introduce a regression.
>
The other thing is also: isn't it high time to remove autofs 3? It has
been unmaintained for at least 10 years now. I should know ;)
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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