On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 14:37 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> +static int pid_in_pid_ns(struct pid *pid, struct pid_namespace *ns)
> +{
> + return pid && (ns->level <= pid->level) &&
> + pid->numbers[ns->level].ns == ns;
> +}
Could we blow this out a little bit? (I think the blown-out version
lends itself to being better commented, and easier to read.) Also, can
we think of any better name for this? It seems a bit funky that:
pid_in_pid_ns(mypid, &init_pid_ns);
would _ever_ return 0. So, it isn't truly a test for belonging *in* a
namespace, but having that namespace be the lowest level one. I think
Suka toyed with calling it an "active" or "primary" pid namespace. That
differentiated mere membership in a pid namespace from the one that
actually molds that pid's view of the world.
static int pid_in_pid_ns(struct pid *pid, struct pid_namespace *ns)
{
if (!pid)
return 0;
if (ns->level > pid->level)
return 0;
if (pid->numbers[ns->level].ns != ns)
return 0;
return 1;
}
-- Dave
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
