Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030455AbVKPThE (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:37:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030456AbVKPThE (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:37:04 -0500 Received: from smtpout.mac.com ([17.250.248.88]:50626 "EHLO smtpout.mac.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030455AbVKPThB (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:37:01 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20051113152214.GC2193@spitz.ucw.cz> References: <20051114212341.724084000@sergelap> <20051114153649.75e265e7.pj@sgi.com> <20051115055107.GB3252@IBM-BWN8ZTBWAO1> <20051113152214.GC2193@spitz.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <9901B851-17B2-4AEB-813F-A92560DFE289@mac.com> Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" , Paul Jackson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, frankeh@watson.ibm.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Kyle Moffett Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 00/13] Introduce task_pid api Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:36:38 -0500 To: Pavel Machek X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1356 Lines: 35 On Nov 13, 2005, at 10:22, Pavel Machek wrote: >> @@ -2925,7 +2925,7 @@ void submit_bio(int rw, struct bio *bio) >> if (unlikely(block_dump)) { >> char b[BDEVNAME_SIZE]; >> printk(KERN_DEBUG "%s(%d): %s block %Lu on %s\n", >> - current->comm, current->pid, >> + current->comm, task_pid(current), >> (rw & WRITE) ? "WRITE" : "READ", >> (unsigned long long)bio->bi_sector, >> bdevname(bio->bi_bdev,b)); > > ...and now printk is close to useless, because uer can't know to > which pidspace that pid belongs. Oops. Uhh, this patch doesn't introduce any kind of virtualization yet. When that happens, _this_ code will remain the same (it wants the real pid), but *other* code will switch to use task_vpid(current) instead. This is an extremely literal translation of current->pid to task_pid(current), both of which do exactly the same thing. Cheers, Kyle Moffett -- There is no way to make Linux robust with unreliable memory subsystems, sorry. It would be like trying to make a human more robust with an unreliable O2 supply. Memory just has to work. -- Andi Kleen - 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/