On 4/10/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com> wrote:
> [ Sorry abt piece meal reviews, I am sending comments as and when I spot
> something ]

That's no problem.

>
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 04:32:24PM -0700, menage@google.com wrote:
> > -void container_exit(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > +void container_exit(struct task_struct *tsk, int run_callbacks)
> >  {
>
> [snip]
>
> > +     /* Reassign the task to the init_container_group. */
> >       task_lock(tsk);
>
> [snip]
>
> > +     if (tsk->containers != &init_container_group) {
>
> Is this check needed? If we have the check, then:
>
> > +     task_unlock(tsk);
> > +     if (cg)
> > +             put_container_group(cg);
>
> init_container_group refcount is leaky (fork increments it, but exit
> doesnt). Not a big prob perhaps, but ..would be nice to avoid?
>

Yes, I think you're right - over a long uptime that would just cause
problems ...

Paul
-
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/