On Sat, 2006-25-03 at 23:52 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
No, we cannot have both passed. If we pass both a PID and a TGID and
then the code returns just the stats for the PID.
ok, that clears it then; i think you are ready to go.
Also in regards to the nesting, isnt there a need for
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 09:05:18AM -0500, jamal wrote:
On Sat, 2006-25-03 at 23:52 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
No, we cannot have both passed. If we pass both a PID and a TGID and
then the code returns just the stats for the PID.
ok, that clears it then; i think you are ready to go.
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 08:19:25PM -0500, jamal wrote:
On Fri, 2006-24-03 at 20:24 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
Hmm... Would it be ok to send one message with the following format
1. TLV=TASKSTATS_TYPE_PID
2. TLV=TASKSTATS_TYPE_STATS
3. TLV=TASKSTATS_TYPE_TGID
4.
On Sat, 2006-25-03 at 15:11 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
Thanks for the advice, I will dive into nesting. I could not find any
in tree users who use nesting, so I have a few questions
Hrm - I have to say i am suprised theres nothing; i could have sworn
Thomas had done some conversions
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 07:52:13AM -0500, jamal wrote:
On Sat, 2006-25-03 at 15:11 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
Thanks for the advice, I will dive into nesting. I could not find any
in tree users who use nesting, so I have a few questions
Hrm - I have to say i am suprised theres
On Sat, 2006-25-03 at 21:06 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 07:52:13AM -0500, jamal wrote:
I didnt pay attention to failure paths etc; i suppose your testing
should catch those. Getting there, a couple more comments:
+enum {
+ TASKSTATS_CMD_UNSPEC = 0, /*
On 3/25/06, jamal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2006-25-03 at 21:06 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 07:52:13AM -0500, jamal wrote:
I didnt pay attention to failure paths etc; i suppose your testing
should catch those. Getting there, a couple more comments:
Yes, I
On Thu, 2006-23-03 at 21:11 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 09:04:46AM -0500, jamal wrote:
Should there be at least either a pid or tgid? If yes, you need to
validate here...
Yes, you are correct. One of my test cases caught it too.. But I did
not want to untidy the
On Fri, 2006-24-03 at 07:02 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 09:04:46AM -0500, jamal wrote:
3. nlmsg_new() now allocates for 2*u32 + sizeof(taskstats)
Not the right size; the u32 covers the V part of TLV. The T = 16 bits
and L = 16 bits. And if you nest TLVs, then it gets
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 09:04:21AM -0500, jamal wrote:
On Thu, 2006-23-03 at 21:11 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 09:04:46AM -0500, jamal wrote:
Should there be at least either a pid or tgid? If yes, you need to
validate here...
Yes, you are correct. One of
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 09:11:58AM -0500, jamal wrote:
On Fri, 2006-24-03 at 07:02 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 09:04:46AM -0500, jamal wrote:
3. nlmsg_new() now allocates for 2*u32 + sizeof(taskstats)
Not the right size; the u32 covers the V part of TLV. The T = 16
Hi Balbir,
Looking good.
This is a quick scan, so i didnt look at little details.
Some comments embedded.
On Wed, 2006-22-03 at 13:19 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
diff -puN /dev/null include/linux/taskstats.h
+ * The struct is versioned. Newer versions should only add fields to
+ *
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 09:04:46AM -0500, jamal wrote:
Hi Balbir,
Looking good.
This is a quick scan, so i didnt look at little details.
Some comments embedded.
Hi, Jamal,
I tried addressing your comments in this new version.
Changelog
-
1. Moved TASKSTATS_MSG_* to under #ifdef
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 09:48:26PM -0500, jamal wrote:
On Mon, 2006-13-03 at 18:33 -0800, Matt Helsley wrote:
On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 19:56 -0500, Shailabh Nagar wrote:
I had a long description in an earlier email feedback; but the summary
of it is the GET command is generic like
14 matches
Mail list logo
