[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D46CB9E.1090802@free.fr>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:47:58 +0100
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...e.fr>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
CC: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com, oleg@...hat.com,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, clg@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] pidns: Use task_active_pid_ns where appropriate
On 01/31/2011 12:26 PM, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Daniel Lezcano<daniel.lezcano@...e.fr> wrote:
>> The expressions tsk->nsproxy->pid_ns and task_active_pid_ns
>> aka ns_of_pid(task_pid(tsk)) should have the same number of
>> cache line misses with the practical difference that
>> ns_of_pid(task_pid(tsk)) is released later in a processes life.
>>
>> Furthermore by using task_active_pid_ns it becomes trivial
>> to write an unshare implementation for the the pid namespace.
>>
>> So I have used task_active_pid_ns everywhere I can.
> Yet current->nsproxy->pid_ns is way clearer.
> Because live current always has pid_ns.
>
> This task_active_pid_ns() is misnamed(?) because it does matter only
> for dead tasks?
Actually this function is later used, for the unshare, to get the pid_ns
of a specific task, not the current one.
http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-kernel/2010/6/20/4585095
Do you suggest task_pid_ns(struct task_struct *tsk) would be a better name ?
>> - current->nsproxy->pid_ns->last_pid);
>> + task_active_pid_ns(current)->last_pid);
> I thought of doing exactly opposite patch :-)
>
--
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