[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120119141051.GA9652@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:10:51 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Andrew Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] fs, proc: Introduce /proc/<pid>/task/<tid>/children
entry v6
On 01/18, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>
> I suppose it might be something like below. I've updated comment and
> quoted your comment there just I wont forget this next time I'll be
> reading the source. Thanks!
I believe the patrch is correct.
But... Cyrill, I am wondering how much will you hate me if I make
yet another attempt to delay this patch.
> +static int children_seq_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> +{
> + struct proc_pid_children_iter *iter = NULL;
> + struct task_struct *task = NULL;
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + task = get_proc_task(inode);
> + if (!task) {
> + ret = -ENOENT;
> + goto err;
> + }
For what??
> + if (!ret) {
> + struct seq_file *m = file->private_data;
> + m->private = iter;
> +
> + iter->pid_start = get_pid(task_pid(task));
This is what we need, right? So can't we remove this "task_struct *task"
and simply do
iter->pid_start = get_ppid(proc_pid(inode));
?
And while this is absolutely cosmetic probably ->parent_pid is
a bit better name, but this is up to you.
Oleg.
--
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