[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111122152939.GC322@google.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 07:29:39 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
James Bottomley <jbottomley@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] fork: Add the ability to create tasks with
given pids
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 07:23:12AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> I think the question should usually be the other way around. Why
> deviate when the deviation doesn't earn any tangible benefit? If you
> think setting it explicitly is justified, explain why in the comment
> of the setter and places where those explicit settings are.
Hmmm... I think I trimmed a bit too much. Let me add back a bit.
So, either just use set_last_pid() or explain in the comment of
set_last_pid() that there are other places which set last_pid but it
won't race because they're synchronized through outer lock and similar
comment where the explicit setting of last_pid is too. As it
currently stands, it really is difficult to find out who else would be
changing last_pid - it's buried in an argument to a proc parse
function. IMHO just using set_last_pid() would be better here.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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