On Sun, 2017-10-01 at 16:05 +0530, Gargi Sharma wrote: > 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?
Looking at it some more, it appears the value is only ever used in /proc/loadavg. Would anyone object to the code simply calling idr_get_cursor() as is, and leaving out the -1? Somehow I suspect nobody will care that the pid value in /proc/loadavg reflects the next PID allocated, rather than the previous one. Any objections? -- All Rights Reversed.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
