[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160823144812.GA2088@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 16:48:13 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Mateusz Guzik <mguzik@...hat.com>
Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
sgrubb@...hat.com, pmoore@...hat.com, eparis@...hat.com,
luto@...capital.net, linux-audit@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] mm: introduce get_task_exe_file
On 08/23, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
>
> +struct file *get_task_exe_file(struct task_struct *task)
> +{
> + struct file *exe_file = NULL;
> + struct mm_struct *mm;
> +
> + task_lock(task);
> + mm = task->mm;
> + if (mm) {
> + if (!(task->flags & PF_KTHREAD))
> + exe_file = get_mm_exe_file(mm);
> + }
> + task_unlock(task);
> + return exe_file;
> +}
I can't believe I am going to comment the coding style but I can't resist ;)
if (mm && !(task->flags & PF_KTHREAD)))
exe_file = get_mm_exe_file(mm);
looks a bit simpler to me. But this is purely cosmetic and subjective,
both patches look good to me.
Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists