[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1308236499.8230.89.camel@bahia.local>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 17:01:39 +0200
From: Greg Kurz <gkurz@...ibm.com>
To: Louis Rilling <Louis.Rilling@...labs.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, xemul@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce ActivePid: in /proc/self/status (v2, was
Vpid:)
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 15:25 +0200, Louis Rilling wrote:
> > Ok. You're right, the RCU grace period is just what I need to ensure
> I
> > won't dereference a stale pointer. So I don't even have to bother
> with
> > ->siglock and just check pid_alive() before peeking into
> pid->numbers.
>
> It ends like open-coding an optimized version of task_pid_vnr(). If
> the
> optimization is really important (I guess this depends on the depth of
> recursive
> pid namespaces), it would be better to re-write task_pid_vnr().
> Otherwise, just
> use task_pid_vnr() as it is.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Louis
>
Hmm, sorry Louis but I'm looking for the pid number from the task active
pid_ns (AKA. the return value of getpid() if called by this task), so
task_pid_vnr() doesn't fit.
About the open-coding argument, that's why I used task_pid_nr_ns() and
task_active_pid_ns() at first...
--
Gregory Kurz gkurz@...ibm.com
Software Engineer @ IBM/Meiosys http://www.ibm.com
Tel +33 (0)534 638 479 Fax +33 (0)561 400 420
"Anarchy is about taking complete responsibility for yourself."
Alan Moore.
--
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