Re: [PATCH 1/4] userns: let clone_uts_ns() handle setting uts->user_ns

[Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@free.fr>]

On 02/21/2011 02:58 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Oleg Nesterov (oleg@redhat.com):
>> On 02/21, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> On 02/21/2011 05:01 AM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>>>> To do so we need to pass in the task_struct who'll get the utsname,
>>>> so we can get its user_ns.
>>>>
>>>> -extern struct uts_namespace *copy_utsname(unsigned long flags,
>>>> -					struct uts_namespace *ns);
>>>> +extern struct uts_namespace *copy_utsname(struct task_struct *tsk,
>>>> +					  unsigned long flags,
>>>> +					  struct uts_namespace *ns);
>>> Why don't we pass 'user_ns' instead of 'tsk' ? that will look
>>> semantically clearer for the caller no ?
>>> (example below).
>>> ...
>>>
>>> new_nsp->uts_ns = copy_utsname(flags, tsk->nsproxy->uts_ns, task_cred_xxx(tsk, user)->user_ns);
>> To me tsk looks more readable, I mean
>>
>> 	new_nsp->uts_ns = copy_utsname(flags, tsk);
>>
>> copy_utsname() can find both uts_ns and user_ns looking at task_strcut.
> Uh, yeah.  I should remove the 'ns' argument there shouldn't I.
>
> Daniel, does that sway your opinion then?

Well, I prefer to pass the needed parameters to a function. AFAICS, 
'tsk' is not really needed but 'user_ns'.
But it is a detail, so if passing the tsk parameter in the other copy_* 
functions helps to cleanup, that will be consistent.
So I am fine with that.