On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 05:32 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Ian Kent <raven@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > >> > >> From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Replace pid_t in autofs with struct pid reference. > >> > >> Make autofs container-friendly by caching struct pid reference rather > >> than pid_t and using pid_nr() to retreive a task's pid_t. > >> > >> ChangeLog: > >> - Fix Eric Biederman's comments - Use find_get_pid() to hold a > >> reference to oz_pgrp and release while unmounting; separate out > >> changes to autofs and autofs4. > > > > What changes to autofs4? > > Do you intend this change to be made for autofs4 also? > > Perhaps you expected me to do them, in which case you probably should > > ask me to do the patch. > > The review history goes something like this. > - That's a big patch why are you touching autofs and autofs4 at the > same time? > <split> > - Hmm. That change in the autofs4 patch looks fishy. > <patch postponed until the issue was addressed> > > autofs4 uses pids more extensively than autofs and so the change is > correspondingly larger. > > If you would like to look at what it would take to get autofs4 to only > store values as struct pid * instead of storing pid_t that would be great. > But for the most part I this is a massive global change that those of us > pushing it are responsible for changing as fixing up as much of the code > as we can, as is usual kernel practice. How about you send over the autofs4 bit and I'll have a look (the autofs patch looked fine). That would save me a bit of time and if there are any changes needed I can send an updated patch for you guys to review. I don't think autofs4 uses pids differently, in principle, than autofs so it "should" be straight forward. Ian _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
