On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 09:02:00PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * 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?
No, I don't believe so. Ok, so saving 'current' and comparing that should be enough, correct? Cheers, Don -- 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/
