Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Pavel Emelianov (xemul@xxxxxxxxxx): >> sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> Pavel Emelianov [xemul@xxxxxxxxxx] wrote: >>> | sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> | > Subject: [PATCH 2/6] Rename pid_nr function >>> | > >>> | > From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> | > >>> | > Rename pid_nr() function to pid_to_nr() which is more descriptive >>> | > and will hopefully cause less confusion with new structure/functions >>> | > being added to support multiple pid namespaces. >>> | >>> | Don't we need at least two convertors: >>> | pid_to_nr_as_it_seen_by_current() >>> | and >>> | pid_to_nr_as_it_seen_by_some_other_task() >>> >>> Can you give me an example of where you would use this latter >>> (pid_to_nr_as_it_seen_by_some_other_task()) interface ? >> Easy. Consider you're observing /proc/<pid>/status file for a task >> that lives in two namespaces - init and some created. When making >> "cat" on this from init namespace you must get the task's pid as it >> is seen from init namespace, but when making "cat" from the created >> namespace you must see the pid as it is seen by this namespace. And >> so on and so forth. > > But 'current' in that case is the process reading the file, so you do in > fact want to use pid_to_nr_as_it_seen_by_current(). Well. I see. There's a misleading in names. Better would be called them pid_nr_as_it_is_seen_by_the_owning_task_when_he_reads_it() %) and pid_nr_as_it_is_seen_by_arbitrary_task() the first one is pid_vnr() the second is pid_nr_ns(). > -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
