[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191017085414.GC17513@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 10:54:14 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aarcange@...hat.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, christian@...lner.me, cyphar@...har.com,
elena.reshetova@...el.com, guro@...com, jannh@...gle.com,
ldv@...linux.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, mhocko@...e.com, mingo@...nel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, shuah@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] pidfd: verify task is alive when printing fdinfo
On 10/16, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 06:24:09PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > And why task_ if it accepts pid+pid_type? May be pid_has_task() or
> > something like this...
>
> Given what I said above that might be a decent name.
>
> >
> > OK, since I can't suggest a better name I won't really argue. Feel free
> > to add my reviewed-by to this series.
>
> No, naming is important. Thanks for being picky about that too and I'll
> happily resend. :)
Thanks ;) May be pid_in_use() ? Up to you, anything which starts with pid_
looks better to me than task_alive().
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists