Christoph Lameter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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?
I was actually going to change it to
if (p != current || !thread_group_empty(p))
need_lock = 1;
a) because my brain works that way and
b) To make the currently-unneeded initialisation of need_lock do
something useful ;)
-
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]