Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764641AbXKTXpe (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:45:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754860AbXKTXpV (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:45:21 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:56395 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754979AbXKTXpT (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:45:19 -0500 Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 00:45:05 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Ulrich Drepper Cc: Roland McGrath , Guillaume Chazarain , "Eric W. Biederman" , Pavel Emelyanov , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Pavel Machek , kernel list , netdev Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc3: find complains about /proc/net Message-ID: <20071120234505.GF23667@elte.hu> References: <4743026B.2020907@openvz.org> <20071120215914.GE24156@elte.hu> <20071120223559.GA6655@elte.hu> <20071120225457.B6E2D26F8BE@magilla.localdomain> <20071120230106.GD24380@elte.hu> <3d8471ca0711201506t6b2b88a0h9484f8a40a1f2e40@mail.gmail.com> <20071120232600.F1D2F26F8BE@magilla.localdomain> <47436E7F.2060901@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47436E7F.2060901@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.1.7-deb -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1034 Lines: 26 * Ulrich Drepper wrote: > > Oh, it seems it has indeed been that way for a very long time, so I > > was mistaken. It still seems a little odd to me. Ulrich can say > > definitively whether the kind of concern I mentioned really matters > > one way or the other for glibc. > > glibc cannot survive (at least NPTL) if somebody uses funny CLONE_* > flags to separate various pieces of information, e.g., file > descriptors. > So, all the information in each thread's /proc/self should be > identical. > > When the information is not the same, the current semantics seems to > be more useful. So I guess, no change is the way to go here. can you see any danger to providing a /proc/self_task/ link? (or can you think of a better name/API/approach) Ingo - 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/