* Don Zickus <dzic...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > So I agree with the motivation of this improvement, but
> > > > is this implementation namespace-safe?
> > >
> > > What namespace are you worried about colliding with? I
> > > thought softlockup_ would provide the safety?? Maybe I
> > > am missing something obvious. :-(
> >
> > I meant PID namespaces - a PID in itself isn't guaranteed
> > to be unique across the system.
>
> Ah, I don't think we thought about that. Is there a better
> way to do this? Is there a domain id or something that can
> be OR'd with the pid?
What is always unique is the task pointer itself. We use pids
when we interface with user-space - but we don't really do that
here, right?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
