On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 07:29:38PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > #define do_each_thread(g, t) \ > > for (g = t = &init_task ; (g = t = next_task(g)) != &init_task ; ) do > > @@ -2384,11 +2387,8 @@ extern bool current_is_single_threaded(void); > > #define while_each_thread(g, t) \ > > while ((t = next_thread(t)) != g) > > > > -#define __for_each_thread(signal, t) \ > > - list_for_each_entry_rcu(t, &(signal)->thread_head, thread_node) > > - > > #define for_each_thread(p, t) \ > > - __for_each_thread((p)->signal, t) > > + list_for_each_entry_rcu(t, &(p)->signal->thread_head, thread_node) > > Why? __for_each_thread(signal) can generate a better code, if we do care.
Well, there were no users and it wasn't mentioned anywhere. > In fact, ignoring the bad "signal" name, __for_each_thread(signal, t) > even looks better. "signal" represents the whole thread group. > > But I won't argue. Besides, this reminds me about CONST_CAST() and making > task_struct->signal "const". This can improve the code generation too. Yeah, I always disliked how we mixed up the signal handling and the thread group stuff. We should probably rename the lot. > > +static inline __deprecated > > +struct task_struct *next_thread(const struct task_struct *p) > > { > > Not sure... But probably fine too. > > I already killed some users of next_thread(). This reminds me about > next_tid(), probably it should be converted too. > > As for, say, __exit_signal() it really needs next_thread(). We can fix > it instead of deprecating, or we can add another one with another name. Well, your Changelog said that next_thread() was faulty too; if __exit_signal() is the only site where it is correct we can open-code it there. If there's more we should probably create a new function and audit all current sites. -- 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/