On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 12:21 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> I think this might be more what we want.
Yep, indeed.
> I tried to think of cases where the first entry of Pid is not
> identical
> to the first entry of NSpid but I came up with none. Maybe you do,
> Jann?
Yeah, I don't think that can be the case. By looking at the source of
'pid_nr_ns(pid, ns)' a non-zero return means that a) 'pid' valid, ie.
non-null and b) 'ns' is in the pid namespace hierarchy of 'pid' (at
pid->level, i.e. "pid->numbers[ns->level].ns == ns").
> Christian, this is just a quick stab I took. Feel free to pick this
> up as a template.
Thanks! I slightly re-worked it, with the reasoning above in mind, to
get rid of one of the branches:
+#ifdef CONFIG_PID_NS
+ seq_put_decimal_ull(m, "\nNSpid:\t", nr);
+ if (nr) {
+ int i;
+
+ /* If nr is non-zero it means that 'pid' is valid and that
+ * ns, i.e. the pid namespace associated with the procfs
+ * instance, is in the pid namespace hierarchy of pid.
+ * Start at one level below and print all descending pids.
+ */
+ for (i = ns->level + 1; i <= pid->level; i++) {
+ ns = pid->numbers[i].ns;
+ seq_put_decimal_ull(m, "\t", pid_nr_ns(pid, ns));
+ }
+ }
+#endif
But I now just realized that with the very same reasoning, if nr is
non-zero, we don't need to redo all the checks and can just do:
for (i = ns->level + 1; i <= pid->level; i++)
seq_put_decimal_ull(m, "\t", pid->numbers[i].nr);
If this sounds good to you I resend the patches with the change above.
Thanks,
Christian
