* Don Zickus <dzickus@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > So I agree with the motivation of this improvement, but > > > > is this implementation namespace-safe? > > > > > > What namespace are you worried about colliding with? I > > > thought softlockup_ would provide the safety?? Maybe I > > > am missing something obvious. :-( > > > > I meant PID namespaces - a PID in itself isn't guaranteed > > to be unique across the system. > > Ah, I don't think we thought about that. Is there a better > way to do this? Is there a domain id or something that can > be OR'd with the pid? What is always unique is the task pointer itself. We use pids when we interface with user-space - but we don't really do that here, right? Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
