![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> writes: > On 09/10, Eric W. Biederman wrote:>> >> As for the functions can we build them in all 4 varieties. >> struct pid *get_task_pid(struct task *);>> struct pid *get_task_tgid(struct task *);>> struct pid *get_task_pgrp(struct task *);>> struct pid *get_task_session(struct task *);>> Something like the patch below? Yes something like that. Although it doesn't provide for the get_task_tgid case, and your patch only get_task_pid. >> Either that or we can just drop in some rcu_read_lock() rcu_read_unlock() >> into the call sites.>> Possible. I don't have a strong opinion, please feel free to send > a different patch. I just might. Coming up with an idiom that is hard to get wrong, is desirable here, or at least with an idiom that is consistent. I need to sleep on it before I can answer which way we handle that. The pain with a new idiom is that I will have to update all of the users so all of the examples in the kernel are consistent. I might just need to do that anyway, but... Eric - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-09-11 07:03 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||