[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231116093848.GB18748@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 10:38:48 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@...edance.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Kui-Feng Lee <kuifeng@...com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] bpf: bpf_iter_task_next: use next_task(kit->task)
rather than next_task(kit->pos)
On 11/16, Yonghong Song wrote:
>
> On 11/14/23 11:32 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >This looks more clear and simplifies the code. While at it, remove the
> >unnecessary initialization of pos/task at the start of bpf_iter_task_new().
> >
> >Note that we can even kill kit->task, we can just use pos->group_leader,
> >but I don't understand the BUILD_BUG_ON() checks in bpf_iter_task_new().
>
> Let us keep kit->task, which is used in later function
> bpf_iter_task_next(). The patch looks good to me.
Yes, but it can use pos->group_leader instead of kit->task.
But I agree, lets keep kit->task.
> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>
Thanks!
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists