From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Wagner Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/8] cgroup: Remove CGROUP_BUILTIN_SUBSYS_COUNT Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:57:39 +0200 Message-ID: <505183E3.3030409@monom.org> References: <1347459128-32236-1-git-send-email-wagi@monom.org> <1347459128-32236-5-git-send-email-wagi@monom.org> <50517FFF.4030106@huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <50517FFF.4030106-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Li Zefan Cc: netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Daniel Wagner , Gao feng , Jamal Hadi Salim , John Fastabend , Neil Horman Hi Li, On 13.09.2012 08:41, Li Zefan wrote: >> @@ -1321,11 +1321,13 @@ static int parse_cgroupfs_options(char *data, struct cgroup_sb_opts *opts) >> * take duplicate reference counts on a subsystem that's already used, >> * but rebind_subsystems handles this case. >> */ >> - for (i = CGROUP_BUILTIN_SUBSYS_COUNT; i < CGROUP_SUBSYS_COUNT; i++) { >> + for (i = 0; i < CGROUP_SUBSYS_COUNT; i++) { >> unsigned long bit = 1UL << i; >> >> if (!(bit & opts->subsys_mask)) >> continue; >> + if (!subsys[i]->module) >> + continue; > > This check is not necessary. If it's builtin, try_module_get() will just return 1, and > we're fine. Yes, I didn't see the try_module_get. Although I think with leaving the test away it would change the behavior, e.g. if (!subsys[i]->module) continue; if (!try_module_get(subsys[i]->module)) { module_pin_failed = true; break; } module_pin_failed would be set then and we would jump into the error code later. This tests looks a bit ugly though I think leaving it away and relying on try_module_get() is not correct. >> @@ -1437,6 +1443,7 @@ static void init_cgroup_housekeeping(struct cgroup *cgrp) >> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cgrp->event_list); >> spin_lock_init(&cgrp->event_list_lock); >> simple_xattrs_init(&cgrp->xattrs); >> + memset(cgrp->subsys, 0, sizeof(cgrp->subsys)); > > This seems an unrelated change, and is redundant. Am I missing something? The reason why it is necessary to NULL all the entries in the array, is that task_cls_classid() and task_netprioidx() check the return pointer from task_subsys_state(). If it is NULL those function know that the subsystem is not ready to be used. Should I move this change to the next patch then? cheers, daniel