Dave Hansen wrote: > On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 16:50 +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote: >> +struct pid * fastcall __find_vpid(int nr, struct pid_namespace *ns) >> +{ >> +#ifdef CONFIG_PID_NS >> + struct hlist_node *elem; >> + struct pid *pid; >> +#endif >> + >> + if (ns == &init_pid_ns) >> + return find_pid(nr); >> + >> +#ifdef CONFIG_PID_NS >> + hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(pid, elem, >> + &vpid_hash[vpid_hashfn(nr, ns)], vpid_chain) { >> + if (pid->vnr == nr && pid->ns == ns) >> + return pid; >> + } >> +#endif >> + return NULL; >> +} > > I am a bit worried that there are too many #ifdefs here. Your patch > series adds ~20 of them, and they look to me to be mostly in .c files. > Section 2 in SubmittingPatches somewhat discourages this. > > Do you have any plans for cleaning these up? Sure I have. But this approach makes review simpler - everyone explicitly see what exact actions are taken in each place. In the second iteration this will be make in a more elegant way like making static inline stubs etc. This set is a kind of RFC and proof-of-concept. I didn't intent this to be merged to any tree as is. That's why a attached the lats patch with strut in proc to observe the whole tree. BTW, question to Sukadev - how did you test your patches? I do know that ps utility doesn't work without full /proc tree and I don's see similar hacks in your patchset. > -- Dave > > _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers