Quoting Oleg Nesterov (oleg@xxxxxxxxxx): > On 02/21, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > > > On 02/21/2011 05:01 AM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > >> To do so we need to pass in the task_struct who'll get the utsname, > >> so we can get its user_ns. > >> > >> -extern struct uts_namespace *copy_utsname(unsigned long flags, > >> - struct uts_namespace *ns); > >> +extern struct uts_namespace *copy_utsname(struct task_struct *tsk, > >> + unsigned long flags, > >> + struct uts_namespace *ns); > > > > Why don't we pass 'user_ns' instead of 'tsk' ? that will look > > semantically clearer for the caller no ? > > (example below). > > ... > > > > new_nsp->uts_ns = copy_utsname(flags, tsk->nsproxy->uts_ns, task_cred_xxx(tsk, user)->user_ns); > > To me tsk looks more readable, I mean > > new_nsp->uts_ns = copy_utsname(flags, tsk); > > copy_utsname() can find both uts_ns and user_ns looking at task_strcut. Uh, yeah. I should remove the 'ns' argument there shouldn't I. Daniel, does that sway your opinion then? thanks, -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
