On 08/22, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:05:55PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > Why would you ever want to do this? It just makes these tests more > > expensive for no gain what so ff'ing ever. > > Backups are generally considered a good idea, but in this case, I'd > quote:
And perhaps you are right. At least we can probably kill task->tgid. And I agree, it would be nice to kill task->pid. But: I also agree with Peter, we should try to not make the current code more expensive. Anyway. Imho, you should not mix the different things in one series. If you want to fix audit, do not add the patches like 10/12 or 11/12 into this series. Or 3/12. OK, I agree sys_getppid() in audit_log_task_info() looks strange at least. Just fix it using the helpers we already have and add the new helpers later. Or send the patch(es) which adds the new helpers first. Or task_pid_nr_init_ns()... For what? We already have task_pid_nr(). Use the helper we already have, or introduce the new one first and change the current users of task_pid_nr(). In short. Fortunately you do not need to convince me, I do not maintain audit or namespaces ;) But imho this series looks a bit confusing. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
