On 01/31/2011 12:26 PM, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Daniel Lezcano<daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> The expressions tsk->nsproxy->pid_ns and task_active_pid_ns >> aka ns_of_pid(task_pid(tsk)) should have the same number of >> cache line misses with the practical difference that >> ns_of_pid(task_pid(tsk)) is released later in a processes life. >> >> Furthermore by using task_active_pid_ns it becomes trivial >> to write an unshare implementation for the the pid namespace. >> >> So I have used task_active_pid_ns everywhere I can. > Yet current->nsproxy->pid_ns is way clearer. > Because live current always has pid_ns. > > This task_active_pid_ns() is misnamed(?) because it does matter only > for dead tasks? Actually this function is later used, for the unshare, to get the pid_ns of a specific task, not the current one. http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-kernel/2010/6/20/4585095 Do you suggest task_pid_ns(struct task_struct *tsk) would be a better name ? >> - current->nsproxy->pid_ns->last_pid); >> + task_active_pid_ns(current)->last_pid); > I thought of doing exactly opposite patch :-) > _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
