[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <505183E3.3030409@monom.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:57:39 +0200
From: Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>
To: Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>,
Gao feng <gaofeng@...fujitsu.com>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/8] cgroup: Remove CGROUP_BUILTIN_SUBSYS_COUNT
Hi Li,
On 13.09.2012 08:41, Li Zefan wrote:
>> @@ -1321,11 +1321,13 @@ static int parse_cgroupfs_options(char *data, struct cgroup_sb_opts *opts)
>> * take duplicate reference counts on a subsystem that's already used,
>> * but rebind_subsystems handles this case.
>> */
>> - for (i = CGROUP_BUILTIN_SUBSYS_COUNT; i < CGROUP_SUBSYS_COUNT; i++) {
>> + for (i = 0; i < CGROUP_SUBSYS_COUNT; i++) {
>> unsigned long bit = 1UL << i;
>>
>> if (!(bit & opts->subsys_mask))
>> continue;
>> + if (!subsys[i]->module)
>> + continue;
>
> This check is not necessary. If it's builtin, try_module_get() will just return 1, and
> we're fine.
Yes, I didn't see the try_module_get. Although I think with leaving the
test away it would change the behavior, e.g.
if (!subsys[i]->module)
continue;
if (!try_module_get(subsys[i]->module)) {
module_pin_failed = true;
break;
}
module_pin_failed would be set then and we would jump into the error
code later.
This tests looks a bit ugly though I think leaving it away and relying
on try_module_get() is not correct.
>> @@ -1437,6 +1443,7 @@ static void init_cgroup_housekeeping(struct cgroup *cgrp)
>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cgrp->event_list);
>> spin_lock_init(&cgrp->event_list_lock);
>> simple_xattrs_init(&cgrp->xattrs);
>> + memset(cgrp->subsys, 0, sizeof(cgrp->subsys));
>
> This seems an unrelated change, and is redundant. Am I missing something?
The reason why it is necessary to NULL all the entries in the array, is
that task_cls_classid() and task_netprioidx() check the return pointer
from task_subsys_state(). If it is NULL those function know that the
subsystem is not ready to be used. Should I move this change to the next
patch then?
cheers,
daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists