Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 12:24:47 -0600
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       hpa@zytor.com, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>,
       Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] autofs: fix the wrong usage of the deprecated
	task_pgrp_nr()
Message-ID: <20090119182447.GA15140@us.ibm.com>
References: <1232331602.3136.19.camel@zeus.themaw.net> <20090119070801.GA21686@redhat.com> <1232352677.3136.103.camel@zeus.themaw.net> <20090119083208.GA25297@redhat.com> <1232363717.3136.134.camel@zeus.themaw.net> <20090119124253.GA3268@redhat.com> <1232372016.3136.155.camel@zeus.themaw.net> <20090119143046.GA8284@redhat.com> <20090119174836.GA11295@us.ibm.com> <20090119180534.GA22913@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090119180534.GA22913@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1608
Lines: 44

Quoting Oleg Nesterov (oleg@redhat.com):
> On 01/19, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Oleg Nesterov (oleg@redhat.com):
> > > On 01/19, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 13:42 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Before the patch
> > > > >
> > > > > 	sbi->oz_pgrp != task_pgrp(automount)
> > > > >
> > > > > After the patch
> > > > >
> > > > > 	sbi->oz_pgrp == task_pgrp(automount)
> > > > >
> > > > > And please note that these "!="/"==" apply to any namespace. I mean,
> > > > > when we call autofs_oz_mode() it does not matter in which namespace
> > > > > autofs_oz_mode() is executed, we compare "struct pid*", not pid_t.
> > > >
> > > > I think your saying that the option pgrp= is broken and should be
> > > > deprecated
> > >
> > > No, no, sorry if I confused you.
> > > 
> > > If the "pgrp=" option was specified, the patch has no effect, and the
> > > code is correct with or without the patch.
> >
> > But so there does still need to be a patch modifying parse_options()
> > to return an error if pgrp= was not specified, right?
> 
> Why? In that case we should use the caller's pgrp. This is what the
> current tries to do, why should the patch change this behaviour?

Well, because Ian said that not specifying it is supposed to
be an error :)  I didn't quite understand why, so am fishing
for more info...

-serge
--
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/