On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:45:15AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:24:55 -0400
> Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Abstracting away direct uses of TASK_ flags allows us to change the
> > definitions of the task flags more easily.
> > --- a/arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c
> > +++ b/arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c
> > @@ -2631,7 +2631,7 @@ pfm_task_incompatible(pfm_context_t *ctx, struct
> > task_struct *task)
> > */
> > if (task == current) return 0;
> >
> > - if ((task->state != TASK_STOPPED) && (task->state != TASK_TRACED)) {
> > + if (!is_task_stopped_or_traced(task)) {
> > DPRINT(("cannot attach to non-stopped task [%d] state=%ld\n",
> > task_pid_nr(task), task->state));
> > return -EBUSY;
> > }
> > @@ -4792,7 +4792,7 @@ recheck:
> > * the task must be stopped.
> > */
> > if (PFM_CMD_STOPPED(cmd)) {
> > - if ((task->state != TASK_STOPPED) && (task->state !=
> > TASK_TRACED)) {
> > + if (!is_task_stopped_or_traced(task)) {
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think this is horrible. Are you going to add full blown static inline
function for every combination of state tests?
> I have dropped this hunk because the file which it is patching is removed
> by the (newly-added-to-mm) git-perfmon.patch. I can't immediately find any
> corresponding code which was readded in a different place by git-perfmon so
> it looks like this code was simply zapped.
>
> Of course, if git-perfmon doesn't merge in 2.6.25 then I'll end up merging
> your patch but accidentally leaving 2.6.25's arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c
> unpatched. It looks like that'll be non-fatal.
>
> This isn't going to go very well and I might end up having to drop this
> whole patch series and ask for a refactored one. We'll see.
-
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/
