Hi Mark, On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:43 PM Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com> wrote: > Code checking whether a task is a kthread isn't very consistent. Some > code correctly tests task->flags & PF_THREAD, while other code checks > task->mm (which can be true for a kthread which calls use_mm()). > > So that we can clean this up and keep the code easy to follow, let's add > an obvious helper function to test whether a task is a kthread. > Subsequent patches will use this as part of cleaning up and correcting > open-coded tests. > > At the same time, let's fix up the kerneldoc for is_idle_task() for > consistency with the new helper, using true/false rather than 0/1, given > the functions return bool. > > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com>
Thanks for your patch! > --- a/include/linux/sched.h > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h > @@ -1621,13 +1621,24 @@ extern struct task_struct *idle_task(int cpu); > * is_idle_task - is the specified task an idle task? > * @p: the task in question. > * > - * Return: 1 if @p is an idle task. 0 otherwise. > + * Return: true if @p is an idle task, false otherwise. > */ > static inline bool is_idle_task(const struct task_struct *p) > { > return !!(p->flags & PF_IDLE); > } > > +/** > + * is_kthread - is the specified task a kthread > + * @p: the task in question. > + * > + * Return: true if @p is a kthread, false otherwise. > + */ > +static inline bool is_kthread(const struct task_struct *p) > +{ > + return !!(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD); The !! is not really needed. Probably you followed is_idle_task() above (where it's also not needed). > +} > + Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds