Christian Brauner christian.brauner@ubuntu.com writes:
On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 03:06:46PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Christian Brauner christian.brauner@ubuntu.com writes:
On Sun, Mar 08, 2020 at 04:36:55PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
These functions have very little to do with de_thread move them out of de_thread an into flush_old_exec proper so it can be more clearly seen what flush_old_exec is doing.
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" ebiederm@xmission.com
fs/exec.c | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c index ff74b9a74d34..215d86f77b63 100644 --- a/fs/exec.c +++ b/fs/exec.c @@ -1189,11 +1189,6 @@ static int de_thread(struct task_struct *tsk)
While you're cleaning up de_thread() wouldn't it be good to also take the opportunity and remove the task argument from de_thread(). It's only ever used with current. Could be done in one of your patches or as a separate patch.
How does that affect the code generation?
The same way renaming "tsk" to "me" does.
My sense is that computing current once in flush_old_exec is much better than computing it in each function flush_old_exec calls. I remember that computing current used to be not expensive but noticable.
For clarity I can see renaming tsk to me. So that it is clear we are talking about the current process, and not some arbitrary process.
For clarity since de_thread() uses "tsk" giving the impression that any task can be dethreaded while it's only ever used with current. It's just a suggestion since you're doing the rename tsk->me anyway it would fit with the series. You do whatever you want though. (I just remember that the same request was made once to changes I did: Don't pass current as arg when it's the only task passed.)
That's fair.
And I completely agree that we should at least rename tsk to me. Just for clarity.
My apologies if I am a little short. My little son has been an extra handful lately.
Eric