Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030256AbWARTiS (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:38:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030389AbWARTiS (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:38:18 -0500 Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.141]:61380 "EHLO e1.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030256AbWARTiR (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:38:17 -0500 Subject: Re: RFC [patch 00/34] PID Virtualization Overview From: Dave Hansen To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Alan Cox , Suleiman Souhlal , Serge Hallyn , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Hubertus Franke , Cedric Le Goater In-Reply-To: <1137612537.3005.116.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> References: <20060117143258.150807000@sergelap> <43CD18FF.4070006@FreeBSD.org> <1137517698.8091.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43CD32F0.9010506@FreeBSD.org> <1137521557.5526.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1137522550.14135.76.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1137610912.24321.50.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1137612537.3005.116.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:38:08 -0800 Message-Id: <1137613088.24321.60.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1375 Lines: 31 On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 20:28 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 11:01 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > > Other than searches, there appear to be quite a number of drivers an > > subsystems that like to print out pids. I can't find any cases yet > > where these are integral to functionality, but I wonder what approach we > > should take. > > those should obviously print out the REAL pid, not the application > pid ... so no changes needed. One suggestion was to make all pid comparisons meaningless without some kind of "container" context along with it. The thought is that using pids is inherently racy, and relatively meaningless anyway, so the kernel shouldn't be dealing with them. (The obvious exception being in userspace interfaces) This would let tsk->pid be anything that it likes as long as it has a unique pid in its container. But, it seems that many drivers like to print out pids as a unique identifier for the task. Should we just let them print those potentially non-unique identifiers, deprecate and kill them, or provide a replacement with something else which is truly unique? -- Dave - 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/