[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87k3m0rt5d.fsf@xmission.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:53:50 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Raphael S. Carvalho" <raphael.scarv@...il.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] kernel/pid.c: Masking the flag out to get the actual value.
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:16:50 -0700 ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
>
>>
>> > Hopefully we can fix this one by adding the missing comment.
>>
>> Perhaps we can fix this one by having people who care read the code and
>> think about what it means?
>
> As is obvious from this thread, that approach isn't working.
>
>> Seriously if we are adding pids/processes in
>> the pid namespace why would to clean up the pid namespace?
>
> A good way to communicate the design would be to describe the semantics
> of PIDNS_HASH_ADDING, at its definition site.
>
> [idly wonders what the heck pid_namespace.level and pid.level do,
> sigh]
Explaining the semantics a bit more seems reasonable.
Something like:
unsigned int level; /* How deeply nested is this pid namespace */
#define PIDNS_HASH_ADDING (1U << 31) /* Process are still entering the pid namespace */
Sorry I don't have the focus to make that into a proper patch.
Eric
--
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