On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 12:32 PM Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:43:01AM +0200, Christian Kellner wrote: > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 12:21 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > 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"). Agreed. > You could probably do: > > #ifdef CONFIG_PID_NS > seq_put_decimal_ull(m, "\nNSpid:\t", nr); > for (i = ns->level + 1; i <= pid->level && nr; i++) > seq_put_decimal_ull(m, "\t", pid->numbers[i].nr); > #endif Personally, I dislike hiding the precondition for running the loop in the loop statement like that. While it makes the code more concise, it somewhat obfuscates the high-level logic at a first glance.
