On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:19:34 +0100 Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer@bull.net> wrote:

> 
> 
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:44:38 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 17:52:50 +0100 Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer@bull.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> sem_exit_ns(), msg_exit_ns() and shm_exit_ns() are all called when an ipc_namespace is
> >>> released to free all ipcs of each type.
> >>> But in fact, they do the same thing: they loop around all ipcs to free them
> >>> individually by calling a specific routine.
> >>>
> >>> This patch proposes to consolidate this by introducing a common function, free_ipcs(),
> >>> that do the job. The specific routine to call on each individual ipcs is passed as
> >>> parameter. For this, these ipc-specific 'free' routines are reworked to take a
> >>> generic 'struct ipc_perm' as parameter.
> >> This conflicts in more-than-trivial ways with Pavel's
> >> move-the-ipc-namespace-under-ipc_ns-option.patch, which was in
> >> 2.6.24-rc3-mm1.
> >>
> > 
> > err, no, it wasn't that patch.  For some reason your change assumes that
> > msg_exit_ns() (for example) doesn't have these lines:
> > 
> >         kfree(ns->ids[IPC_MSG_IDS]);
> >         ns->ids[IPC_MSG_IDS] = NULL;
> > 
> > in it.
> 
> Yes, in fact, I've made this patch on top of this one:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/22/49
> 
> As the patch mentioned by this previous thread was acked by Cedric and Pavel,
> I've assumed that you will take both.

doh, I misread the discussion and assumed that a new version was due, sorry.

> But I've not made this clear, sorry.

Well, sequence-numbering the patches as

[patch 2/5] ipc: <stuff>
[patch 5/5] ipc: <more stuff>

always helps.  Emails get reordered in flight, but more importantly this
numbering helps ensure that none of the patches get lost.

_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers