2012/10/9 Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>: > On 10/08, Andrey Wagin wrote: >> >> 2012/10/7 Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>: >> > >> > Perhaps we should MAX_PID_NS_LEVEL instead? >> >> Yes, we can. >> >> Could I just define MAX_PID_NS_LEVEL in a code: >> #define MAX_PID_NS_LEVEL ((PAGE_SIZE - offsetof(struct pid, numbers)) >> / sizeof(struct upid)) > > Or even less. But looks reasonable. > >> Or should it be added in a config? > > Personally I think that "define" is fine, we can add config/sysctl > later if needed.
Ok, I'm going to send a patch. > > > Hmm. This is off-topic, but... > > create_pid_namespace: > > unsigned int level = parent_pid_ns->level + 1; > ns->pid_cachep = create_pid_cachep(level + 1); Yes, it's correct, because pid->numbers[ns->level] should be valid, so a size of an array pid->numbers should be (level + 1). /* .... * @nr_ids: the number of numerical ids this pid will have to carry */ static struct kmem_cache *create_pid_cachep(int nr_ids) > > is it correct? is seems that only one "+ 1" is needed? > > Oleg. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
