On 16/06/11 16:51 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 06/16, Louis Rilling wrote: > > > > On 16/06/11 15:00 +0200, Greg Kurz wrote: > > > 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(). > > No, task_pid_vnr(p) is different, it should use the caller's namespace. Damned, I read __task_pid_nr_ns() too quickly. Thanks for correcting me. > > Just in case, I agree there is no need to optimize this code. The simpler > the better. I mentioned pid->numbers[pid->level] just to point that all > we need is task_pid() itself, there are no subtle races which need the > locking. Agreed. Thanks, Louis -- Dr Louis Rilling Kerlabs Skype: louis.rilling Batiment Germanium Phone: (+33|0) 6 80 89 08 23 80 avenue des Buttes de Coesmes http://www.kerlabs.com/ 35700 Rennes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
