On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Benjamin Blum<bblum@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > No, the idea is that even though we had a reference that we already > dropped, we in effect "traded" the newcg to the task for its oldcg, > giving it our reference on newcg and gaining its reference on oldcg. I > believe the cgroup_mutex guarantees that it'll still be there when we > do the trade - perhaps a BUG_ON(tsk->cgroups != oldcg) is wanted > inside the second task_lock section there? I don't think that's safe, since the task could exit and drop its reference (and switch to init_css_set). >> >> I think it's more intuitive to return 1 if found and 0 if not found. > > I was sticking with the convention of nonzero return values indicating > failure, as is used everywhere else in this context. > Make it a bool, so that it's intuitively more obvious that true==success? Paul _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
