[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150526194613.GC6978@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 21:46:13 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...n.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Ionut Alexa <ionut.m.alexa@...il.com>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 09/13] exit: Use for_each_thread() in do_wait()
On 05/25, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>
> Refactoring, no functionality change.
Hmm. unless I missed something this change is wrong.
> --- a/kernel/exit.c
> +++ b/kernel/exit.c
> @@ -1538,8 +1538,7 @@ static long do_wait(struct wait_opts *wo)
>
> set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> - tsk = current;
> - do {
> + for_each_thread(current, tsk) {
> retval = do_wait_thread(wo, tsk);
> if (retval)
> goto end;
> @@ -1550,7 +1549,7 @@ static long do_wait(struct wait_opts *wo)
>
> if (wo->wo_flags & __WNOTHREAD)
> break;
> - } while_each_thread(current, tsk);
> + }
Please note the __WNOTHREAD check. This is the rare case when we
actually want while_each_thread() (although it should die anyway).
for_each_thread() always starts from ->group_leader, but we need
to start from "current" first.
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