[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170123125222.GA28626@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 13:52:23 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Pavel Tikhomirov <ptikhomirov@...tuozzo.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Stanislav Kinsburskiy <skinsbursky@...tuozzo.com>,
Mateusz Guzik <mguzik@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...tuozzo.com>,
Konstantin Khorenko <khorenko@...tuozzo.com>
Subject: task_is_descendant() cleanup
On 01/23, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> Btw task_is_descendant() looks wrong at first glance.
No, I missed the 2nd ->group_leader dereference. Still this function looks
overcomplicated and the usage of thread_group_leader/group_leader just add
the unnecessary confusion. It can be simplified a little bit:
static int task_is_descendant(struct task_struct *parent,
struct task_struct *child)
{
int rc = 0;
struct task_struct *walker;
if (!parent || !child)
return 0;
rcu_read_lock();
for (walker = child; walker->pid; walker = rcu_dereference(walker->real_parent))
if (same_thread_group(parent, walker)) {
rc = 1;
break;
}
rcu_read_unlock();
return rc;
}
Kees, I can send a patch if you think this very minor cleanup makes any sense.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists