Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:44:38 -0800 Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 17:52:50 +0100 Pierre Peiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. But I've not made this clear, sorry. -- Pierre - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/