Eric W. Biederman [ebiederm@xmission.com] wrote:
| Cedric Le Goater <clg@fr.ibm.com> writes:
| 
| > sukadev@us.ibm.com wrote:
| >> From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@us.ibm.com>
| >> Subject: [PATCH 4/4] Use task_pgrp() in autofs/autofs4
| >> 
| >> Replace process_group(tsk) with pid_nr(task_pgrp(tsk)) in autofs and autofs4.
| >
| > you will need EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL for pid_nr()

Cedric: do we need the export in -mm or just in -lxc ? In -mm, for now,
this is an inline function in pid.h and should just get included into
the file(s) no ?

| 
| This bit I can agree with.  Because you need that at least for
| the seq_printf.
| 
| However all of the pid_nr(task_pgrp) stuff just appears to be painful
| noise.  

Ok. I thought they were low priority but required eventually.

| 
| I have largely given up on review this patch set until that is fixed.

I am sending out the patches with the noise cancelled :-) Would like
to send them out to akpm in a few days.

Suka
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers

sukadev@us.ibm.com writes:

> Ok. I thought they were low priority but required eventually.

If the target is not the current task change is required.  We gain
very little by changing our accessors of the current task.

The important part is that when someone else looks at us we
go through a struct pid and pid_nr so they get the relative view
of what is going on.

The tricky thing is that we find all references to pids.  The well
defined functions are easy.  We can grep for them and see if they
are using anything besides current.

Any time we store a pid we need to store it as a struct pid.

Right now by messing with pid_nr(task_xxx(current)) you are generating
a lot of unnecessary changes, and to some extent hiding where real
change needs to happen.

These things all follow from the fundamentals of what we are doing.

> | I have largely given up on review this patch set until that is fixed.
>
> I am sending out the patches with the noise cancelled :-) Would like
> to send them out to akpm in a few days.

Unfortunately I won't have a chance to do anything until sometime next
week.  I'm off on a short trip without a computer.

Eric
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers

| 
| > | I have largely given up on review this patch set until that is fixed.
| >
| > I am sending out the patches with the noise cancelled :-) Would like
| > to send them out to akpm in a few days.
| 
| Unfortunately I won't have a chance to do anything until sometime next
| week.  I'm off on a short trip without a computer.

Eric, when you get a chance, can you review the patches I sent last
week ?
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers

sukadev@us.ibm.com writes:

> | 
> | > | I have largely given up on review this patch set until that is fixed.
> | >
> | > I am sending out the patches with the noise cancelled :-) Would like
> | > to send them out to akpm in a few days.
> | 
> | Unfortunately I won't have a chance to do anything until sometime next
> | week.  I'm off on a short trip without a computer.
>
> Eric, when you get a chance, can you review the patches I sent last
> week ?

Thanks for the reminder.  I will see if I can find them and take a look.
I have a pile of email to go through still.

I seem to be playing whack a mole today on the stable tree.

Eric
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers