On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Christoph Hellwig <h...@infradead.org> wrote: >> - task_active_pid_ns(current)->last_pid); >> + task_active_pid_ns(current)->idr.idr_next-1); > > I think we want a well documented helper for this pattern instead > of poking into the internals. idr_get_cursor() get can be used instead of idr.idr_next, so that we do not expose the internals. > > Also is last - 1 always the correct answer? Even with idr_alloc_cyclic > we could wrap around, couldn't we? -1 will be incorrect when the pids wrap around. Should we go back to setting up last_pid as it was done before? Or should we use idr_get_cursor and determine if pid was rolled over and then perform necessary action?
Thanks! Gargi
