From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757790Ab3FLByX (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jun 2013 21:54:23 -0400 Received: from out04.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.234]:56427 "EHLO out04.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755225Ab3FLByV (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jun 2013 21:54:21 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Andrew Morton Cc: "Raphael S. Carvalho" , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Serge Hallyn , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1370901398-8989-1-git-send-email-raphael.scarv@gmail.com> <20130611154518.fda9262961c21e96a57cbd5e@linux-foundation.org> <8761xkt9fh.fsf@xmission.com> <20130611182831.8d6d25be.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:53:50 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20130611182831.8d6d25be.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (Andrew Morton's message of "Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:28:31 -0700") Message-ID: <87k3m0rt5d.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX19KgOSfjIy1u5U8DUrOS2DV6UIYe+PU1Y4= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 98.207.154.105 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 1.5 XMNoVowels Alpha-numberic number with no vowels * 0.7 XMSubLong Long Subject * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG * -3.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa05 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.0 T_TooManySym_01 4+ unique symbols in subject X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa05 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Andrew Morton X-Spam-Relay-Country: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] kernel/pid.c: Masking the flag out to get the actual value. X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:26:46 -0700) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton writes: > On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:16:50 -0700 ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > >> >> > Hopefully we can fix this one by adding the missing comment. >> >> Perhaps we can fix this one by having people who care read the code and >> think about what it means? > > As is obvious from this thread, that approach isn't working. > >> Seriously if we are adding pids/processes in >> the pid namespace why would to clean up the pid namespace? > > A good way to communicate the design would be to describe the semantics > of PIDNS_HASH_ADDING, at its definition site. > > [idly wonders what the heck pid_namespace.level and pid.level do, > sigh] Explaining the semantics a bit more seems reasonable. Something like: unsigned int level; /* How deeply nested is this pid namespace */ #define PIDNS_HASH_ADDING (1U << 31) /* Process are still entering the pid namespace */ Sorry I don't have the focus to make that into a proper patch. Eric