On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 13:27 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> So currently I can see to justifications for introducing
> a separation between kpid_t pid_t.
> 1) pid virtualization
> 2) In kernel pids that act as weak references, and avoid
> the problems of pid wrap-around.
It is an interesting approach. But, in its current state, it is very,
very hard to review. For starters, could you break it up so that the
meat of the patch is separate from the easy
s/foo->pid/pid_nr(foo->pid)/ stuff?
-- Dave
_______________________________________________
Vserver mailing list
Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org
http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
Received on Mon Jan 23 21:58:16 2006