On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 15:25 +0200, Louis Rilling wrote: > > Ok. You're right, the RCU grace period is just what I need to ensure > I > > won't dereference a stale pointer. So I don't even have to bother > with > > ->siglock and just check pid_alive() before peeking into > pid->numbers. > > It ends like open-coding an optimized version of task_pid_vnr(). If > the > optimization is really important (I guess this depends on the depth of > recursive > pid namespaces), it would be better to re-write task_pid_vnr(). > Otherwise, just > use task_pid_vnr() as it is. > > Thanks, > > Louis > Hmm, sorry Louis but I'm looking for the pid number from the task active pid_ns (AKA. the return value of getpid() if called by this task), so task_pid_vnr() doesn't fit. About the open-coding argument, that's why I used task_pid_nr_ns() and task_active_pid_ns() at first... -- Gregory Kurz gkurz@xxxxxxxxxx Software Engineer @ IBM/Meiosys http://www.ibm.com Tel +33 (0)534 638 479 Fax +33 (0)561 400 420 "Anarchy is about taking complete responsibility for yourself." Alan Moore. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
