On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 18:29 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Maw, 2006-01-17 at 10:12 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > You do assign new pids, at least as far as the kernel is concerned.
> > However, any processes that continue to run would get confused if their
> > pid changed. You have to make sure that the tasks have a _consistent_
> > view of which process is which pid.
>
> Don't reassign the pid at all. Keep task->container and do the job
> explicitly. Most task searches for a pid are abstracted already and most
> users of ->pid who try and use it for comparing two tasks for equality
> or for keeping a task reference are already terminally racey and want
> fixing anyway.
Other than searches, there appear to be quite a number of drivers an
subsystems that like to print out pids. I can't find any cases yet
where these are integral to functionality, but I wonder what approach we
should take. Should we deprecate printk'ing of pids? Make a special
function or % modifier to turn a task_struct into something printable?
A function would run into issues of having buffers in which to print the
output. But, we'd be able to do things like:
sprintf(buffer, "%d:%d", tsk->container, tsk->pid);
-- Dave
-
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]
