From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964808AbWGAExX (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Jul 2006 00:53:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964815AbWGAExX (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Jul 2006 00:53:23 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:50055 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964808AbWGAExW (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Jul 2006 00:53:22 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:53:12 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Jeff Garzik Cc: ltuikov@yahoo.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched.h: increment TASK_COMM_LEN to 20 bytes Message-Id: <20060630215312.b1389820.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <44A5FE17.1000607@garzik.org> References: <20060630181915.638166c2.akpm@osdl.org> <20060701012658.14951.qmail@web31803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060630183744.310f3f0d.akpm@osdl.org> <44A5FE17.1000607@garzik.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.17; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 00:46:15 -0400 Jeff Garzik wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > > Luben Tuikov wrote: > >>> We do occasionally hit task_struct.comm[] truncation, when people use > >>> "too-long-a-name%d" for their kernel thread names. But we seem to manage. > >> It would be especially helpful if you want to name a task thread > >> the NAA IEEE Registered name format (16 chars, globally unique), for things > >> like FC, SAS, etc. This way you can identify the task thread with > >> the device bearing the NAA IEEE name. > >> > >> Currently just last character is cut off, since TASK_COMM_LEN is 15+1. > >> > >> I think incrementing it would be a good thing, plus other things > >> may want to represent 8 bytes as a character array to be the name > >> of a task thread. > > > > OK, that's a reason. Being able to map a kernel thread onto a particular > > device is useful. > > But will it wind up this way, when the does-not-exist-yet-upstream code > appears? > > I would think it would make more sense to increase the size of the key > task structure only when there are justified, merged users in the kernel. > Well yes - I assumed that would be happening fairly soon. Luben?