Re: [PATCH 0/3] proc: first_tid() fix/cleanup

[Eric W. Biederman]

Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Hello.
>
> next_thread() should be avoided, probably next_tid() is the
> only "valid" user.
>
> But now we have another reason to avoid (and probably even kill)
> it, we are going to replace or fix while_each_thread(), almost
> every lockless usage is wrong.
>
> I was going to send more changes, but this initial series nearly
> killed me. And I think first_tid() needs another cleanup, ->f_pos
> truncation doesn't look nice, tomorrow.

I have made some comments but overall this looks like a good set of
cleanups.

Reviewed-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

As for f_pos truncation if you want you can safely check
if f_pos is greater than PID_MAX_LIMIT as we will never more
threads than we have pids.

Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/