On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:19:34 +0100 Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:44:38 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 17:52:50 +0100 Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >>> sem_exit_ns(), msg_exit_ns() and shm_exit_ns() are all called when an ipc_namespace is > >>> released to free all ipcs of each type. > >>> But in fact, they do the same thing: they loop around all ipcs to free them > >>> individually by calling a specific routine. > >>> > >>> This patch proposes to consolidate this by introducing a common function, free_ipcs(), > >>> that do the job. The specific routine to call on each individual ipcs is passed as > >>> parameter. For this, these ipc-specific 'free' routines are reworked to take a > >>> generic 'struct ipc_perm' as parameter. > >> This conflicts in more-than-trivial ways with Pavel's > >> move-the-ipc-namespace-under-ipc_ns-option.patch, which was in > >> 2.6.24-rc3-mm1. > >> > > > > err, no, it wasn't that patch. For some reason your change assumes that > > msg_exit_ns() (for example) doesn't have these lines: > > > > kfree(ns->ids[IPC_MSG_IDS]); > > ns->ids[IPC_MSG_IDS] = NULL; > > > > in it. > > Yes, in fact, I've made this patch on top of this one: > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/22/49 > > As the patch mentioned by this previous thread was acked by Cedric and Pavel, > I've assumed that you will take both. doh, I misread the discussion and assumed that a new version was due, sorry. > But I've not made this clear, sorry. Well, sequence-numbering the patches as [patch 2/5] ipc: <stuff> [patch 5/5] ipc: <more stuff> always helps. Emails get reordered in flight, but more importantly this numbering helps ensure that none of the patches get lost. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers