Re: Who changed /proc/<pid>/ in 2.6.0-test5-bk9?
From: Albert Cahalan (albert_at_users.sf.net)
Date: 10/02/03
- Previous message: Tim Hockin: "IDEA: arch uid16 cleanup (was 'Many groups patch')"
- In reply to: Linus Torvalds: "Re: Who changed /proc/<pid>/ in 2.6.0-test5-bk9?"
- Next in thread: Ulrich Drepper: "Re: Who changed /proc/<pid>/ in 2.6.0-test5-bk9?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> Date: 01 Oct 2003 20:57:59 -0400
On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 20:38, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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.
This maybe?
/proc/task -> 42/task/84
> If /proc/self points to a thread, it's easy to look up the process with a
> "/proc/self/../..".
That wouldn't have worked with /proc/self pointing to
an invisible directory like it did. It could certainly
be made to work, like this:
/proc/self -> 42/task/84
Had the /proc/self code not been modified, you'd get
a nasty link like this:
/proc/self -> 84 (and "84" isn't listed in /proc)
So using "/proc/self/../.." would just go up to "/".
That's not too useful.
-
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: Tim Hockin: "IDEA: arch uid16 cleanup (was 'Many groups patch')"
- In reply to: Linus Torvalds: "Re: Who changed /proc/<pid>/ in 2.6.0-test5-bk9?"
- Next in thread: Ulrich Drepper: "Re: Who changed /proc/<pid>/ in 2.6.0-test5-bk9?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
