lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [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


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-01-19 19:13    [W:0.029 / U:31.180 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site