Re: Comment about proc-dont-lock-task_structs-indefinitely.patch

On 4/11/06, Prasanna Meda <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> The task decrement problem is fixed, but I think we have two more
> problems in the following patch segment.
>

I think you agreed with the first problem. And the second problem is,
show_map_internal is still treating m->private as task_struct instead
of  proc_maps_private.
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Comment about proc-dont-lock-task_structs-indefinitely.patch
    • From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)

• References:
  • Comment about proc-dont-lock-task_structs-indefinitely.patch
    • From: "Prasanna Meda" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH 4/6] Have x86_64 use add_active_range() and free_area_init_nodes
• Next by Date: PROBLEM: usbstorage + radeon = resume from stdby screen garbled
• Previous by thread: Comment about proc-dont-lock-task_structs-indefinitely.patch
• Next by thread: Re: Comment about proc-dont-lock-task_structs-indefinitely.patch
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]