[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130604173252.GA22223@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 19:32:52 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Sergey Dyasly <dserrg@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] proc: first_tid() fix/cleanup
Andrew,
On 06/03, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Changes:
>
> 1/4: Update the changelog, do not move the comment.
>
> 2/4: No changes.
So these two are fine, but please ignore 3 and 4.
> 3/4: Update the comment following the explanations from
> Eric.
>
> Eric pointed that get_proc_task() without rcu lock
> can trigger the (bogus) warning. Extract the similar
> check from pid_delete_dentry() into the new helper
> and use it instead.
>
> I didn't dare to preserve his ack, but the only change
> is the new proc_inode_is_dead() helper and
>
> - if (pid_task(proc_pid(inode))
> + if (proc_inode_is_dead(inode))
>
> in proc_task_readdir().
Looks like a good cleanup and it was acked, but conflicts (textually)
with viro/vfs.git#experimental.
> 4/4: New.
Should be updated and conflicts too.
Oleg.
--
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