Some questions.
first_tgid:
...
for (; pos && pid_alive(pos); pos = next_task(pos))
I think this patch makes this 'pid_alive(pos)' unneeded?
next_tgid:
rcu_read_lock();
pos = start;
if (pid_alive(start))
pos = next_task(start);
if (pid_alive(pos) && (pos != &init_task)) {
get_task_struct(pos);
goto done;
}
The first 'pid_alive()' check is quite understandable.
What about the second one? I beleive, now it is unneeded
as well. The same for first_tid/next_tid.
Also, first_tid() does 'task_lock(leader)' while reading
->signal->count. Why? ->signal is protected by ->siglock,
but we don't need any locks because ->signal is rcu safe.
Same for proc_task_getattr(), s/task_lock/rcu_read_lock/.
Oleg.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
