Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 1 Jun 2007 15:23:34 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2][RFC] containers: improve automatic container naming |
| |
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 16:48:09 -0500 "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> This compiles and boots, but is not intended for inclusion in -mm (yet), > just as an RFC for the naming scheme to fix the bug Andrew pointed out. > > Seem ok overall? > > thanks, > -serge > > >From 8e9b972f7482415777e982d3bc9a0d55cbaf862b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Serge E. Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com> > Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 15:32:15 -0400 > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] containers: improve automatic container naming > > The automatic naming of containers created using container_clone() > is currently broken (not protected from wraparound) and inconvenient. > > Add a per-container counter for use in naming children of the container. > Before two unshares in a row by one process, and a third in another, > would result in > > /node1/node2 > /node3 > > The current scheme should result in > > /node1/node1 > /node2 > > Also, keep a hash table populated with used names, to protect > against counter wrap-around. > > ... > > include/linux/container.h | 8 +++ > kernel/container.c | 116 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
gad, what's all this stuff?
I think an IDR tree would get you what you're after in much less code. Although it means that container IDs would get recycled quickly across a remove+add.
Be aware that there are IDR enhancements in Greg's driver tree (and hence in -mm) which are relevant to this application.
> + if (cont->auto_cnt_set) {
Can we please stop using "cnt" and "cont" to refer to containers? Let's use "container", OK?
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |