On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Guest section DW wrote:
>> > > 32,767 the next PID is 300. It is not the next-available low one.
>> > >
>> > > Does anybody know why?
>
>> > This behaviour was introduced in 2.1.37.
>> > There is no very good reason. But it separates processes that
>> > were started early (init, syslogd, atd, inetd, lpd, cron, etc.)
>> > from the usual processes. That may be useful
>
>> Huh? "ps" is capable of sorting by starting time, which is a much
>> better idea than relying on the pids behaving *any* particular way.
>
>Of course.
>But clearly the author of this patch thought it useful
>to introduce this behaviour. And it certainly does not harm.
>
>[What does harm a little bit however, is the fact that we wrap.
>For security reasons I would much prefer a 31-bit pid.
>However, Linus did not apply my (trivial) patch, not sure precisely why,
>perhaps just 2.4 freeze. It is a good time now, now that ipc problems
>have been cleared up.]
Resend your patch to Linus then. I too think high PID is a good
idea.
-- Mike A. Harris Linux advocate Computer Consultant GNU advocate Capslock Consulting Open Source advocateSuspicious Anagram #4: Word: PRESIDENT CLINTON OF THE USA Anagram: TO COPULATE HE FINDS INTERNS
- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 23 2000 - 21:00:34 EST