[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100616203445.72EC.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:35:15 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com
Subject: [PATCH 8/9] oom: cleanup has_intersects_mems_allowed()
Now has_intersects_mems_allowed() has own thread iterate logic, but
it should use while_each_thread().
It slightly improve the code readability.
Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
---
mm/oom_kill.c | 8 ++++----
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
index 4236d39..7e9942d 100644
--- a/mm/oom_kill.c
+++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -46,10 +46,10 @@ static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(zone_scan_lock);
* shares the same mempolicy nodes as current if it is bound by such a policy
* and whether or not it has the same set of allowed cpuset nodes.
*/
-static bool has_intersects_mems_allowed(struct task_struct *tsk,
+static bool has_intersects_mems_allowed(struct task_struct *p,
const nodemask_t *mask)
{
- struct task_struct *start = tsk;
+ struct task_struct *tsk = p;
do {
if (mask) {
@@ -69,8 +69,8 @@ static bool has_intersects_mems_allowed(struct task_struct *tsk,
if (cpuset_mems_allowed_intersects(current, tsk))
return true;
}
- tsk = next_thread(tsk);
- } while (tsk != start);
+ } while_each_thread(p, tsk);
+
return false;
}
#else
--
1.6.5.2
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists