Re: [PATCH 2.6.24-rc3-mm1] IPC: consolidate sem_exit_ns(), msg_exit_ns and shm_exit_ns()
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:19:34 +0100 Pierre Peiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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. 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: [patch 5/5] ipc: always helps. Emails get reordered in flight, but more importantly this numbering helps ensure that none of the patches get lost. - 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/
Re: [PATCH 2.6.24-rc3-mm1] IPC: consolidate sem_exit_ns(), msg_exit_ns and shm_exit_ns()
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/
Re: [PATCH 2.6.24-rc3-mm1] IPC: consolidate sem_exit_ns(), msg_exit_ns and shm_exit_ns()
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/
Re: [PATCH 2.6.24-rc3-mm1] IPC: consolidate sem_exit_ns(), msg_exit_ns and shm_exit_ns()
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:19:34 +0100 Pierre Peiffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. 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. - 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/
Re: [PATCH 2.6.24-rc3-mm1] IPC: consolidate sem_exit_ns(), msg_exit_ns and shm_exit_ns()
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. - 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/
Re: [PATCH 2.6.24-rc3-mm1] IPC: consolidate sem_exit_ns(), msg_exit_ns and shm_exit_ns()
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. - 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/
Re: [PATCH 2.6.24-rc3-mm1] IPC: consolidate sem_exit_ns(), msg_exit_ns and shm_exit_ns()
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. - 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/
Re: [PATCH 2.6.24-rc3-mm1] IPC: consolidate sem_exit_ns(), msg_exit_ns and shm_exit_ns()
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. - 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/
