Re: [PATCH] autofs: fix the wrong usage of the deprecatedtask_pgrp_nr()

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Oleg Nesterov (oleg@xxxxxxxxxx):
> On 01/19, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Oleg Nesterov (oleg@xxxxxxxxxx):
> > > On 01/19, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 13:42 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Before the patch
> > > > >
> > > > > 	sbi->oz_pgrp != task_pgrp(automount)
> > > > >
> > > > > After the patch
> > > > >
> > > > > 	sbi->oz_pgrp == task_pgrp(automount)
> > > > >
> > > > > And please note that these "!="/"==" apply to any namespace. I mean,
> > > > > when we call autofs_oz_mode() it does not matter in which namespace
> > > > > autofs_oz_mode() is executed, we compare "struct pid*", not pid_t.
> > > >
> > > > I think your saying that the option pgrp= is broken and should be
> > > > deprecated
> > >
> > > No, no, sorry if I confused you.
> > > 
> > > If the "pgrp=" option was specified, the patch has no effect, and the
> > > code is correct with or without the patch.
> >
> > But so there does still need to be a patch modifying parse_options()
> > to return an error if pgrp= was not specified, right?
> 
> Why? In that case we should use the caller's pgrp. This is what the
> current tries to do, why should the patch change this behaviour?

Well, because Ian said that not specifying it is supposed to
be an error :)  I didn't quite understand why, so am fishing
for more info...

-serge
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/