Pavel Emelianov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Oleg Nesterov wrote: | >On 07/26, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: | >>This is a fix for Sukadev's patch that moved the alloc_pid() call from | >>do_fork() into copy_process(). | > | >... and this patch changes almost every line from Sukadev's patch. | | It does. My bad :( I have reviewed Suka's patch badly and was sure it | puts the alloc_pid() right where we need this.
I should have reviewed Pavel's closely too. Sorry. | | >Sorry gents, but isn't it better to ask Andrew to drop that patch | >(which is quite useless by itself), and send a new one which incorporates | >all necessary changes? Imho, it would be much easier to understand. | | Hm... Maybe it's better to ask him to fold these patches together? I think so, but even dropping my patch is fine with me. | | >>@@ -1406,7 +1422,13 @@ long do_fork(unsigned long clone_flags, | >> if (!IS_ERR(p)) { | >> struct completion vfork; | >> | >>- nr = pid_nr(task_pid(p)); | >>+ /* | >>+ * this is enough to call pid_nr_ns here, but this if | >>+ * improves optimisation of regular fork() | >>+ */ | >>+ nr = (clone_flags & CLONE_NEWPID) ? | >>+ task_pid_nr_ns(p, current->nsproxy->pid_ns) : | >>+ task_pid_vnr(p); | > | >Shouldn't we do the same for CLONE_PARENT_SETTID in copy_process() ? | >Otherwise *parent_tidptr may have a wrong value which doesn't match | >to what fork() returns. | | Oops. We should. Thanks :) | | >Oleg. | | Thanks, | Pavel _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel