* Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > i dont see the point of the complexity you are advocating. 99.9% of > > the users run a unique PID space. > > I'm not advocating complexity. I'm advocating using the same APIs as > the rest of the kernel, for doing the same functions. > > > Tracing is about keeping stuff simple. On containers we could also > > trace the namespace ID (is there an easy ID for the namespace, as an > > easy extension to the very nice PID concept that Unix introduced > > decades ago?) and be done with it. > > I don't really care about the pid namespace in this context. > > I am just asking that we compare a different field in the task > struct. > > I am asking that we don't accumulate new users of an old crufty bug > prone API, for no good reason. i dont disagree about the change, but i'm curious, what's bug-prone about current->pid? It certainly worked quite well for the first 15 years. Ingo _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers