Andrew Morton <[email protected]> writes: > On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:16:50 -0700 [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman) > wrote: > >> >> > Hopefully we can fix this one by adding the missing comment. >> >> Perhaps we can fix this one by having people who care read the code and >> think about what it means? > > As is obvious from this thread, that approach isn't working. > >> Seriously if we are adding pids/processes in >> the pid namespace why would to clean up the pid namespace? > > A good way to communicate the design would be to describe the semantics > of PIDNS_HASH_ADDING, at its definition site. > > [idly wonders what the heck pid_namespace.level and pid.level do, > sigh]
Explaining the semantics a bit more seems reasonable. Something like: unsigned int level; /* How deeply nested is this pid namespace */ #define PIDNS_HASH_ADDING (1U << 31) /* Process are still entering the pid namespace */ Sorry I don't have the focus to make that into a proper patch. Eric -- 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/
