On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote: > + need_lock = !(p == current && thread_group_empty(p)); Isnt need_lock = (p != current || !thread_group_empty(b)) clearer? - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [rfc][patch] Avoid taking global tasklist_lock for single threadedprocess at getrusage()
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [rfc][patch] Avoid taking global tasklist_lock for single threadedprocess at getrusage()
- From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai <[email protected]>
- Re: [rfc][patch] Avoid taking global tasklist_lock for single threadedprocess at getrusage()
- References:
- Re: [rfc][patch] Avoid taking global tasklist_lock for single threadedprocess at getrusage()
- From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai <[email protected]>
- Re: [rfc][patch] Avoid taking global tasklist_lock for single threadedprocess at getrusage()
- From: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>
- Re: [rfc][patch] Avoid taking global tasklist_lock for single threadedprocess at getrusage()
- From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai <[email protected]>
- Re: [rfc][patch] Avoid taking global tasklist_lock for single threadedprocess at getrusage()
- Prev by Date: Re: [RFC] why all the patches get messed up here!!!
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH, RFC] RCU : OOM avoidance and lower latency
- Previous by thread: Re: [rfc][patch] Avoid taking global tasklist_lock for single threadedprocess at getrusage()
- Next by thread: Re: [rfc][patch] Avoid taking global tasklist_lock for single threadedprocess at getrusage()
- Index(es):
 |