[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120119164413.GA16522@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:44:13 +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 01/19, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 04:55:29PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Thinking more... I am not sure, but do we really need
> > proc_pid_children_iter at all??
> >
> > It is very possibly I missed something, but we can get both
> > parent_pid and pid_ns from inode, right? so can't we just remember
> > inode in seq->private?
>
> Good point. Letme check if we will need to call for ihold then...
> (/me scratchig the head)
Why? file/inode can't go away, at least until this fd is closed.
And just in case, get_pid(proc_pid(inode)) is not needed, even in v6/v7.
I didn't realize this.
Cyrill, I won't argue if you prefer to make this in a separate patch
(of course, assuming you are agree) on top of v7, to me it looks
"good enough".
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