[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87fvx61htn.fsf@xmission.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 22:22:12 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Sergey Dyasly <dserrg@...il.com>,
Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@...bao.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] proc: first_tid() fix/cleanup
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> writes:
> Hello.
>
> next_thread() should be avoided, probably next_tid() is the
> only "valid" user.
>
> But now we have another reason to avoid (and probably even kill)
> it, we are going to replace or fix while_each_thread(), almost
> every lockless usage is wrong.
>
> I was going to send more changes, but this initial series nearly
> killed me. And I think first_tid() needs another cleanup, ->f_pos
> truncation doesn't look nice, tomorrow.
I have made some comments but overall this looks like a good set of
cleanups.
Reviewed-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
As for f_pos truncation if you want you can safely check
if f_pos is greater than PID_MAX_LIMIT as we will never more
threads than we have pids.
Eric
--
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