Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 21:49 -0400, Oren Laadan wrote:
>> Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 03:42 -0400, Oren Laadan wrote:
>>>> +static int cr_close_all_fds(struct files_struct *files)
>>>> +{
>>>> + int *fdtable;
>>>> + int n;
>>>> +
>>>> + do {
>>>> + n = cr_scan_fds(files, &fdtable);
>>>> + if (n < 0)
>>>> + return n;
>>>> + while (n--)
>>>> + sys_close(fdtable[n]);
>>>> + kfree(fdtable);
>>>> + } while (n != -1);
>>>> +
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>> This needs to use an ERR_PTR(). It will save using the double-pointer.
>> I suppose you refer to the call to cr_scan_fds(): either 'fdtable'
>> or 'n' will have to pass-by-reference. Is it that you prefer it to be
>> fdtable = cr_scan_fds(files, &n);
>> ?
>
> I was misreading the use of 'n'. Can you really not use close_files()
> for this operation? You'd need to add some locking around it, but I
> think it does what you need here.
I thought about that. However, close_files() assumes that the files_struct
will be discarded thereafter, so it does not reset ->fd_open->fd_bits[] bits,
does not adjust ->next_fd field, and does not use rcu_assign_pointer(). And
then, even if we adjust, we'll have to watch future differences between
sys_close() and close_files(), so using sys_close() is more future-proof.
Besides, cr_scan_fds() is used by the checkpoint logic already, so it's easy
to reuse for restart as well.
Oren.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
