[lkml]   [2000]   [Jan]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Linux 2.3.39 has 32bit uid. What about 32bit pid?
In <85t517$1o4$> Linus Torvalds ( wrote:
> In article <>,
> <> wrote:
>> No, its worse sadly -- think fcntl(fd,F_SETOWN,&pid) sort of thing.
>> We will need a new F_SETOWN or esle the SIGIO stuff will break.
>>But where is the problem?
>>Let me repeat: pid_t has *always* been 32-bit.
>>In libc5. In libc4. In Linux 0.01.

> Indeed.

> In fact, I think that in Linux 0.01 it actually _used_ all bits.

> I remember how I was chasing a strange bug in bash, which turned out to
> be because _bash_ used "short" somewhere to store a pid. And this was
> long long before Linux development and me became arrogant enough to say
> "oh, bash is broken, tell Chet to fix it", so what I ended up doing was
> to just make sure that yes, "pid_t" was still 32-bit, but we only ever
> selected pids in the 15-bit range.

> We could start using 32-bit pid's any day, but for (a) /proc and (b) I'm
> not sure what makes sense in a cluster. Do we want to have the high bits
> be just high bits, or do we want them to be cluster machine ID, or do we
> want them to be thread-ID related?

> So the dynamic range of pids stays at 15 bits until it's clear what the
> right thing is. The type stays at 32 bits..

Do this mean that ipc_pid_t will be extended ?

> Linus

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.055 / U:18.372 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site