On 12/23, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
>
> +static inline pid_t task_ppid_nr_ns(struct task_struct *tsk, struct 
> pid_namespace *ns)
> +{
> +     pid_t pid;
> +
> +     rcu_read_lock();
> +     pid = pid_alive(tsk) ?
> +             task_pid_nr_ns(rcu_dereference(tsk->real_parent), ns) : 0;
> +     rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> +     return pid;
> +}

I do not really mind, but perhaps

        pid_t pid = 0;

        rcu_read_lock();
        if (pid_alive(task))
                pid = task_pid_nr_ns(rcu_dereference(tsk->real_parent);
        rcu_read_unlock();

        return pid;

looks a bit cleaner.

> +static inline pid_t task_ppid_nr(struct task_struct *tsk)
> +{
> +     pid_t pid;
> +
> +     rcu_read_lock();
> +     pid = pid_alive(tsk) ?
> +             task_pid_nr(rcu_dereference(tsk->real_parent)) : 0;
> +     rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> +     return pid;
> +}

It could simply do

        return task_ppid_nr_ns(tsk, init_pid_ns);

but again, I won't argue.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to