[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200909131636.47407.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:36:47 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
mikew@...gle.com, mingo@...e.hu, hpa@...or.com,
Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...tin.ibm.com>, container@...ibm.com,
sukadev@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][v6][PATCH 0/9] clone_with_pids() syscall
On Saturday 12 September 2009, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
>
> Peter Zijlstra [peterz@...radead.org] wrote:
> | On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 09:47 -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
> | > | Also, if you're passing a struct, why not put nr_pids in there, and
> | > | replace clone_pid_struct with a simple array? That would give us
> | > |
> | > | struct clone_struct {
> | > | u64 flags;
> | > | u64 child_stack;
> | > | u32 child_tid;
> | > | u32 parent_tid;
>
> BTW, these two tids are __user pointers that kernel copies data into.
> They should be u64 to avoid conversions in architecture specific code ?
>
No, they are not pointers, the kernel can directly write into the user
data structure. Indirect pointers would not be helpful here IMHO.
Arnd <><
--
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