Re: Who changed /proc/<pid>/ in 2.6.0-test5-bk9?
From: Linus Torvalds (torvalds_at_osdl.org)
Date: 10/02/03
- Previous message: Jeff Garzik: "Re: Minutes from 10/1 LSE Call"
- In reply to: Albert Cahalan: "Re: Who changed /proc/<pid>/ in 2.6.0-test5-bk9?"
- Next in thread: Albert Cahalan: "Re: Who changed /proc/<pid>/ in 2.6.0-test5-bk9?"
- Reply: Albert Cahalan: "Re: Who changed /proc/<pid>/ in 2.6.0-test5-bk9?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:38:16 -0700 (PDT) To: Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sourceforge.net>
On 1 Oct 2003, Albert Cahalan wrote:
>
> It certainly seems to me that the intent of /proc/self is
> to point to a "process", which is a tgid in kernel terms.
My argument against that is that it actually loses information. Now there
is no way to easily look up the current thread stuff.
If /proc/self points to a thread, it's easy to look up the process with a
"/proc/self/../..".
So in that sense it's a bad interface to point to the process, not the
thread.
> I think there is something clearly defective about having
> the /proc/self link point to a hidden directory.
It's not hidden. It would just point to the real thread directory..
Linus
-
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/
- Previous message: Jeff Garzik: "Re: Minutes from 10/1 LSE Call"
- In reply to: Albert Cahalan: "Re: Who changed /proc/<pid>/ in 2.6.0-test5-bk9?"
- Next in thread: Albert Cahalan: "Re: Who changed /proc/<pid>/ in 2.6.0-test5-bk9?"
- Reply: Albert Cahalan: "Re: Who changed /proc/<pid>/ in 2.6.0-test5-bk9?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
