On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:39:06 +0400
Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quite a few fields are zeroed during user_struct creation, so use
> kmem_cache_zalloc() -- save a few lines and #ifdef. Also will help avoid
> #ifdef CONFIG_POSIX_MQUEUE in next patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
>
> kernel/user.c | 13 +------------
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/user.c
> +++ b/kernel/user.c
> @@ -129,21 +129,11 @@ struct user_struct * alloc_uid(struct user_namespace
> *ns, uid_t uid)
> if (!up) {
> struct user_struct *new;
>
> - new = kmem_cache_alloc(uid_cachep, GFP_KERNEL);
> + new = kmem_cache_zalloc(uid_cachep, GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!new)
> return NULL;
> new->uid = uid;
> atomic_set(&new->__count, 1);
> - atomic_set(&new->processes, 0);
> - atomic_set(&new->files, 0);
> - atomic_set(&new->sigpending, 0);
> -#ifdef CONFIG_INOTIFY_USER
> - atomic_set(&new->inotify_watches, 0);
> - atomic_set(&new->inotify_devs, 0);
> -#endif
> -
> - new->mq_bytes = 0;
> - new->locked_shm = 0;
This assumes that setting an atomic_t to the all-zeroes pattern is
equivalent to atomic_set(v, 0).
This happens to be true for all present architectures, afaik. But an
architecture which has crappy primitives could quite legitimately implement
its atomic_t as:
typedef struct {
int counter;
spinlock_t lock;
} atomic_t;
in which case your assumption breaks.
So it's all a bit theoretical and a bit anal, and I'm sure we're making the
same mistake in other places, but it's not a change I particularly like..
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
