Re: [PATCH] fs, proc: Introduce /proc/<pid>/task/<tid>/children entry v7

[Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 06:57:00PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 01/19, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 07:51:12PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > > If it's needed I can wrap all this with CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE, should I?
> > >
> > > ---
> >
> > Oleg, if only I'm not missing something obvious you meant handling like below?
> 
> Yes, but...
> 
> > +struct proc_pid_children_iter {
> > +	struct pid_namespace *pid_ns;
> > +	struct pid *parent_pid;
> > +};
> 
> you forgot to remove this definition.
> 

No, I rather forgot to quilt refresh :)

> > +static int children_seq_show(struct seq_file *seq, void *v)
> > +{
> > +	struct inode *inode = seq->private;
> > +	unsigned long pid;
> > +
> > +	pid = (unsigned long)pid_nr_ns(v, inode->i_sb->s_fs_info);
> > +	return seq_printf(seq, " %lu", pid);
> > +}
> 
> just noticed... why unsigned long and %lu? afaics pid_t/%d should work
> without any typecasts.
> 

I'm not sure how important it is, but Andrew mentioned in one of email
that we might be moving from pid_t from int to long one day (which of
course will require extreme huge work on checking code where int->long
transition might cause problems). So I thought why should I wait then?

[ Andrew, am I correct? ]

But since I'll be refreshig patch anyway, I drop this.

	Cyrill