Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 17:48:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 17:48:42 -0400 Received: from e21.nc.us.ibm.com ([32.97.136.227]:42719 "EHLO e21.nc.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 17:48:41 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Linux-2.5 fix/improve get_pid() From: Paul Larson To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Hubertus Franke , Rik van Riel , Andries Brouwer , Andrew Morton , andrea@suse.de, Dave Jones , lkml In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.5 Date: 09 Aug 2002 16:46:36 -0500 Message-Id: <1028929600.19435.373.camel@plars.austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 864 Lines: 20 On Fri, 2002-08-09 at 16:42, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Hmm.. Giving them a quick glance-over, the /proc issues look like they > shouldn't be there in 2.5.x anyway, since the inode number really is > largely just a random number in 2.5 and all the real information is > squirelled away at path open time. > > There's certainly a possibility for some cleanups, though. So for now then, should I dig out my original (minimal) patch that *just* fixed the "loop forever even if we're out of pids" problem? Even if we increase PID_MAX to something obscenely high, I think we should still be checking for this. -Paul Larson - 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/