Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030304AbVIOAbQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:31:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932536AbVIOAbQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:31:16 -0400 Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.133]:17142 "EHLO e35.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932495AbVIOAbP (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:31:15 -0400 Message-ID: <4328C0D0.6000909@in.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:31:12 -0500 From: Sripathi Kodi User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6-1.1.fc3 (X11/20050720) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Al Viro CC: Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, patrics@interia.pl, Ingo Molnar , Roland McGrath Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.13.1] Patch for invisible threads References: <4325BEF3.2070901@in.ibm.com> <20050912134954.7bbd15b2.akpm@osdl.org> <4326CFE2.6000908@in.ibm.com> <20050913165102.GR25261@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20050913171215.GS25261@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <43274503.7090303@in.ibm.com> <20050914015003.GW25261@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20050914015003.GW25261@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1372 Lines: 32 Al Viro wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:10:21PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >>I don't think this is wrong per se, but you shouldn't take the tasklist >>lock normally. You're better off just doing > > > Could you exlain why we might want to bother with that in the first place? > In any case, why would we want to put that stuff on the common codepath > instead of specialized ->permission()? > Al, I can move this code from proc_root_link() to proc_check_root(), but it will still not be completely limited to ->permission() path. I can create a separate ->permission() for proc_task_inode_operations, and have this additional code there. If I do that, I think I will have to duplicate much of proc_check_root(). Or else, I will have to split proc_check_root() into two functions to prevent code duplication. Please let me know if any of these makes sense, and I will send another patch. If you don't like this idea at all, please let me know if there any other way of solving the invisible threads problem, short of taking out ->permission() altogether from proc_task_inode_operations. Thanks, Sripathi. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/