Re: Linux 2.3.39 has 32bit uid. What about 32bit pid?

From: Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Date: Wed Jan 12 2000 - 12:31:07 EST

Next message: Mike Porter: "Re: [RFC] Maintaining persistent kernel data across module unload/reload"
Previous message: Mark H. Wood: "Re: time_t size: The year 2038 bug?"
In reply to: Petr Vandrovec: "Linux 2.3.39 has 32bit uid. What about 32bit pid?"
Next in thread: Chris Wedgwood: "Re: Linux 2.3.39 has 32bit uid. What about 32bit pid?"
Reply: Chris Wedgwood: "Re: Linux 2.3.39 has 32bit uid. What about 32bit pid?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> but some (two) of these structures include also __kernel_pid_t.
> So I'd like to ask, whether we are going to 32bit pid_t in 2.3.

Probably not. Let me ask a related question - are you going to miss 2 bytes of
padding in case ? I'd use 32bits in case

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

Next message: Mike Porter: "Re: [RFC] Maintaining persistent kernel data across module unload/reload"
Previous message: Mark H. Wood: "Re: time_t size: The year 2038 bug?"
In reply to: Petr Vandrovec: "Linux 2.3.39 has 32bit uid. What about 32bit pid?"
Next in thread: Chris Wedgwood: "Re: Linux 2.3.39 has 32bit uid. What about 32bit pid?"
Reply: Chris Wedgwood: "Re: Linux 2.3.39 has 32bit uid. What about 32bit pid?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 15 2000 - 21:00:20 EST