From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932181AbWGAEqS (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Jul 2006 00:46:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932290AbWGAEqS (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Jul 2006 00:46:18 -0400 Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:975 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932181AbWGAEqR (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Jul 2006 00:46:17 -0400 Message-ID: <44A5FE17.1000607@garzik.org> Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 00:46:15 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060614) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: ltuikov@yahoo.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched.h: increment TASK_COMM_LEN to 20 bytes References: <20060630181915.638166c2.akpm@osdl.org> <20060701012658.14951.qmail@web31803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060630183744.310f3f0d.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20060630183744.310f3f0d.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -4.2 (----) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.1.3 on srv5.dvmed.net summary: Content analysis details: (-4.2 points, 5.0 required) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: > Luben Tuikov wrote: >>> We do occasionally hit task_struct.comm[] truncation, when people use >>> "too-long-a-name%d" for their kernel thread names. But we seem to manage. >> It would be especially helpful if you want to name a task thread >> the NAA IEEE Registered name format (16 chars, globally unique), for things >> like FC, SAS, etc. This way you can identify the task thread with >> the device bearing the NAA IEEE name. >> >> Currently just last character is cut off, since TASK_COMM_LEN is 15+1. >> >> I think incrementing it would be a good thing, plus other things >> may want to represent 8 bytes as a character array to be the name >> of a task thread. > > OK, that's a reason. Being able to map a kernel thread onto a particular > device is useful. But will it wind up this way, when the does-not-exist-yet-upstream code appears? I would think it would make more sense to increase the size of the key task structure only when there are justified, merged users in the kernel. Jeff