Re: [PATCH 1/6] fs/exec: Drop task_lock() inside __get_task_comm()

[Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 4:01 AM Matus Jokay <matus.jokay@stuba.sk> wrote:
>
> Sorry guys for the mistake,
>
> > diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> > index c75fd46506df..56a927393a38 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> > @@ -1083,7 +1083,7 @@ struct task_struct {
> >        *
> >        * - normally initialized setup_new_exec()
> >        * - access it with [gs]et_task_comm()
> > -      * - lock it with task_lock()
> > +      * - lock it with task_lock() for writing
> there should be fixed only the comment about ->comm initialization during exec.
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> index c75fd46506df..48aa5c85ed9e 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -1081,9 +1081,9 @@ struct task_struct {
>         /*
>          * executable name, excluding path.
>          *
> -        * - normally initialized setup_new_exec()
> +        * - normally initialized begin_new_exec()
>          * - access it with [gs]et_task_comm()
> -        * - lock it with task_lock()
> +        * - lock it with task_lock() for writing
>          */
>         char                            comm[TASK_COMM_LEN];
>
> Again, sorry for the noise. It's a very minor fix, but maybe even a small fix to the documentation can help increase the readability of the code.
>

Thank you for your improvement. It is very helpful. I will include it
in the next version.

-- 
Regards
Yafang