Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755814AbZKEFmW (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Nov 2009 00:42:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755110AbZKEFmV (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Nov 2009 00:42:21 -0500 Received: from fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.37]:59583 "EHLO fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754953AbZKEFmV (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Nov 2009 00:42:21 -0500 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 From: KOSAKI Motohiro To: Darren Hart Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Add prctl to set sibling thread names Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Andrew Morton , john stultz , Arjan van de Ven , Andi Kleen , lkml , Mike Fulton , Sean Foley In-Reply-To: <4AF26471.6010705@us.ibm.com> References: <20091105141953.2090.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <4AF26471.6010705@us.ibm.com> Message-Id: <20091105143959.2093.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.50.07 [ja] Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 14:42:23 +0900 (JST) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1396 Lines: 34 > KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > >> KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > >> > >>> John, I'd prefer to suggested another design. > >>> How about this? > >>> > >>> 1. remove pid argument from prctl > >>> 2. cancel pthread_setname_np() > >>> 3. instead, create pthread_attr_setname_np() > >>> 4. pthread_create() change own thread name by pthread_attr. > >>> > >>> It avoid many racy problem automatically. > >> Perhaps, but it also greatly reduces the flexibility of the > >> implementation by restricting name changes to create time. > > > > Hm. > > if your program really need to change another thread name, can you please tell us > > why it is necessary and when it is used? > > I think John's previous mails covered that pretty well. As for doing the > name change at create time, or sometime later, it just seems to me that > the flexibility of doing so later is worth having. While I know we don't > have to follow other systems implementations, in this case > pthread_setname_np() seems a reasonable model to follow to me. You only said your mode is more flexible. but I want to know _why_ this flexibiliby is necessay. please tell us concrete use-case. -- 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/