From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] mm: introduce get_task_exe_file
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 16:48:13 +0200
Message-ID: <20160823144812.GA2088@redhat.com>
References: <1471962039-14940-1-git-send-email-mguzik@redhat.com> <1471962039-14940-2-git-send-email-mguzik@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1471962039-14940-2-git-send-email-mguzik@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Mateusz Guzik <mguzik@redhat.com>
Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru>, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>, ebiederm@xmission.com, sgrubb@redhat.com, pmoore@redhat.com, eparis@redhat.com, luto@amacapital.net, linux-audit@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com

On 08/23, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
>
> +struct file *get_task_exe_file(struct task_struct *task)
> +{
> +	struct file *exe_file = NULL;
> +	struct mm_struct *mm;
> +
> +	task_lock(task);
> +	mm = task->mm;
> +	if (mm) {
> +		if (!(task->flags & PF_KTHREAD))
> +			exe_file = get_mm_exe_file(mm);
> +	}
> +	task_unlock(task);
> +	return exe_file;
> +}

I can't believe I am going to comment the coding style but I can't resist ;)

	if (mm && !(task->flags & PF_KTHREAD)))
		exe_file = get_mm_exe_file(mm);

looks a bit simpler to me. But this is purely cosmetic and subjective,
both patches look good to me.

Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>