Quoting Arjan van de Ven ([email protected]):
> On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 08:33 -0600, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> > plain text document attachment (BC-define-pid-handlers)
> > Actually define the task_pid() and task_tgid() functions. Also
> > replace pid with __pid so as to make sure any missed accessors are
> > caught.
>
> This question was asked a few times before without satisfactory answer:
> *WHY* this abstraction.
> There is *NO* point. Really.
>
> (And if the answer is "but we want to play tricks later", just make a
> current->realpid or whatever, but leave current->pid be the virtual pid.
> Your abstraction helps NOTHING there. Zero Nada Noppes).
The virtual pid is different depending on who is asking. So simply
storing current->realpid and current->pid isn't helpful, as we would
still need to call a function when a pid crosses user->kernel boundary.
However we could make the patch far less invasive by skipping the
task_pid() macro altogether. Switching current->pid to current->__pid
was to make sure we catch any ->pid accesses which we may have missed,
during compilation.
Is that approach (keeping task->pid as the real pid and dropping the
task_pid() macro) preferred by all?
-serge
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
