* Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > i dont see the point of the complexity you are advocating. 99.9% of
> > the users run a unique PID space.
>
> I'm not advocating complexity. I'm advocating using the same APIs as
> the rest of the kernel, for doing the same functions.
>
> > Tracing is about keeping stuff simple. On containers we could also
> > trace the namespace ID (is there an easy ID for the namespace, as an
> > easy extension to the very nice PID concept that Unix introduced
> > decades ago?) and be done with it.
>
> I don't really care about the pid namespace in this context.
>
> I am just asking that we compare a different field in the task
> struct.
>
> I am asking that we don't accumulate new users of an old crufty bug
> prone API, for no good reason.
i dont disagree about the change, but i'm curious, what's bug-prone
about current->pid? It certainly worked quite well for the first 15
years.
Ingo
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
