From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 07:54:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 07:54:03 -0400 Received: from www.deepbluesolutions.co.uk ([212.18.232.186]:45063 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 07:54:03 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 12:53:47 +0100 From: Russell King To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ihno Krumreich , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: get_pid fixes against 2.4.19pre7 Message-ID: <20020426125347.A18131@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20020426134409.C19278@dualathlon.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 01:44:09PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > + set_bit(p->pid, pid_bitmap); > + set_bit(p->pgrp, pid_bitmap); > + set_bit(p->tgid, pid_bitmap); > + set_bit(p->session, pid_bitmap); Since we're running under a lock, do we really need the guaranteed atomic (and therefore expensive) set_bit(), or would __set_bit() suffice? -- Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html