Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:09:51 +0400 | From | Cyrill Gorcunov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] fs, proc: Introduce /proc/<pid>/task/<tid>/children entry v7 |
| |
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 06:57:00PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 01/19, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 07:51:12PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > > > If it's needed I can wrap all this with CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE, should I? > > > > > > --- > > > > Oleg, if only I'm not missing something obvious you meant handling like below? > > Yes, but... > > > +struct proc_pid_children_iter { > > + struct pid_namespace *pid_ns; > > + struct pid *parent_pid; > > +}; > > you forgot to remove this definition. >
No, I rather forgot to quilt refresh :)
> > +static int children_seq_show(struct seq_file *seq, void *v) > > +{ > > + struct inode *inode = seq->private; > > + unsigned long pid; > > + > > + pid = (unsigned long)pid_nr_ns(v, inode->i_sb->s_fs_info); > > + return seq_printf(seq, " %lu", pid); > > +} > > just noticed... why unsigned long and %lu? afaics pid_t/%d should work > without any typecasts. >
I'm not sure how important it is, but Andrew mentioned in one of email that we might be moving from pid_t from int to long one day (which of course will require extreme huge work on checking code where int->long transition might cause problems). So I thought why should I wait then?
[ Andrew, am I correct? ]
But since I'll be refreshig patch anyway, I drop this.
Cyrill
| |