Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> > +static struct pid * const ftrace_swapper_pid = (struct pid *)1; >> >> >> >> >> >> eh? >> >> > >> >> > all side-effects of getting rid of the integer based PID namespace and >> >> > replacing them with struct pid pointers. >> >> >> >> Thanks for asking Andrew it looks like an unnecessary side effect. >> > >> > Well, it was necessary without hacking fork.c ;-) >> >> The (struct pid *)1 has always been unnecessary. > > Well, I could set it to the &init_struct_pid as you said, but it will not > change any of the code below it. So it does not matter what > ftrace_swapper_pid is set to, as long as it is not set to something that > can be a legitimate pid struct for something not the swapper task. > > It will only matter when we fix the fork code. Well that and if someone dereferences. >> As for fork. It would be nice to remove most of the special cases >> for the idle thread. At least the counts are significant. The rest >> is pretty much a don't care at this point. > > Well, the swapper task should still have a pid of zero. That is probably > important. Right. I simply meant most of the if (likely(p->pid)) conditional except for the counts is pretty much a don't care. Keeping the idle tasks off of the process list and out of the counts is useful. For this particular case what problem did you see with calling attach_pid with PIDTYPE_PID on init_struct_pid? Eric _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers