Re: RFC [patch 13/34] PID Virtualization Define new task_pid api

[Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>]

On Maw, 2006-01-24 at 12:26 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> There is at least NFS lockd that appreciates having a single integer
> per process unique identifier.  So there is a practical basis for
> wanting such a thing.

Which gets us back to refcounting.

> At least for this first round I think talking about a kpid
> as a container, pid pair makes a lot of sense for the moment, as
> the other implementations just confuse things.

As an abstract object a kpid to me means a single identifier which
uniquely identifies the process and which in its component parts be they
pointers or not uniquely identifies the process in the container and the
container in the system, both correctly refcounted against re-use.

> However it looks to me that the biggest challenge right now about
> development is the size of a patch to change any one of these things.

Thats where we disagree strongly. Wrappers hide, confuse and obscure. We
want the workings brutally and clearly visible so that people don't make
assumptions and have nasty accidents. Its like typdedefs and overuse of
defines.

Alan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/