Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] proc: first_tid() fix/cleanup

Oleg Nesterov
2013-06-04T17:36:49Z

Andrew,

On 06/03, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Changes:
>
> 1/4: Update the changelog, do not move the comment.
>
> 2/4: No changes.

So these two are fine, but please ignore 3 and 4.

> 3/4: Update the comment following the explanations from
> Eric.
>
> Eric pointed that get_proc_task() without rcu lock
> can trigger the (bogus) warning. Extract the similar
> check from pid_delete_dentry() into the new helper
> and use it instead.
>
> I didn't dare to preserve his ack, but the only change
> is the new proc_inode_is_dead() helper and
>
> - if (pid_task(proc_pid(inode))
> + if (proc_inode_is_dead(inode))
>
> in proc_task_readdir().

Looks like a good cleanup and it was acked, but conflicts (textually)
with viro/vfs.git#experimental.

> 4/4: New.

Should be updated and conflicts too.

Oleg.