On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 01:56:22PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 1) please change 'is' and 'task' around so that it reads nicer:
>
>if (task_is_stopped(t))
>
> instead of the tongue-twister:
>
>if (is_task_stopped(t))
Sure, no problem. I vacillated on this order myself.
> 2) please
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 01:56:22PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
1) please change 'is' and 'task' around so that it reads nicer:
if (task_is_stopped(t))
instead of the tongue-twister:
if (is_task_stopped(t))
Sure, no problem. I vacillated on this order myself.
2) please change
* Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +#define is_task_stopped(task)((task->state & TASK_STOPPED) != 0)
> +#define is_task_stopped_or_traced(task) \
> + ((task->state & (TASK_STOPPED | TASK_TRACED)) != 0)
> +#define is_task_loadavg(task)
* Matthew Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+#define is_task_stopped(task)((task-state TASK_STOPPED) != 0)
+#define is_task_stopped_or_traced(task) \
+ ((task-state (TASK_STOPPED | TASK_TRACED)) != 0)
+#define is_task_loadavg(task)((task-state
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 12:39:41AM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > > - if ((task->state != TASK_STOPPED) && (task->state !=
> > > TASK_TRACED)) {
> > > + if (!is_task_stopped_or_traced(task)) {
> ^^
>
> I think this is horrible. Are
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.
> > ---
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.
>
> Also restructure do_wait() a little
>
> ...
>
> diff --git a/arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c
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.
Also restructure do_wait() a little
...
diff --git a/arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c
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
+++
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 12:39:41AM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
- 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
On Friday 19 October 2007 08:25, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Abstracting away direct uses of TASK_ flags allows us to change the
> definitions of the task flags more easily.
>
> Also restructure do_wait() a little
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
>
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.
>
> Also restructure do_wait() a little
umm, spose so.
There's an excellent chance that a millionth of
Abstracting away direct uses of TASK_ flags allows us to change the
definitions of the task flags more easily.
Also restructure do_wait() a little
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c |4 +-
fs/proc/array.c|7 +---
fs/proc/base.c
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.
Also restructure do_wait() a little
umm, spose so.
There's an excellent chance that a millionth of our
On Friday 19 October 2007 08:25, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
Abstracting away direct uses of TASK_ flags allows us to change the
definitions of the task flags more easily.
Also restructure do_wait() a little
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c |4
Abstracting away direct uses of TASK_ flags allows us to change the
definitions of the task flags more easily.
Also restructure do_wait() a little
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c |4 +-
fs/proc/array.c|7 +---
fs/proc/base.c
Abstracting away direct uses of TASK_ flags allows us to change the
definitions of the task flags more easily.
Also restructure do_wait() a little
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c |4 +-
fs/proc/array.c|9 +---
fs/proc/base.c
Abstracting away direct uses of TASK_ flags allows us to change the
definitions of the task flags more easily.
Also restructure do_wait() a little
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c |4 +-
fs/proc/array.c|9 +---
fs/proc/base.c
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 10:46:51PM -0400, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Abstracting away direct uses of TASK_ flags allows us to change the
> definitions of the task flags more easily.
>
> Also restructure do_wait() a little
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
>
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 10:46:51PM -0400, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
Abstracting away direct uses of TASK_ flags allows us to change the
definitions of the task flags more easily.
Also restructure do_wait() a little
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 08:35:06PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> Does it take task->state or task ?
task. Clearly I didn't test on ia64. (There was an iteration where it
took task->state, and I guess I missed one). Thanks for pointing out
this oops, I'll fix it for round three.
--
Intel are
On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 22:46 -0400, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> */
> if (task == current) return 0;
>
> - if ((task->state != TASK_STOPPED) && (task->state !=
> TASK_TRACED)) {
> + if (!is_task_stopped_or_traced(task->state)) {
> DPRINT(("cannot attach to
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 10:46:51PM -0400, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Abstracting away direct uses of TASK_ flags allows us to change the
> definitions of the task flags more easily.
> --- a/kernel/exit.c
> +++ b/kernel/exit.c
> @@ -259,7 +259,7 @@ static int has_stopped_jobs(struct pid *pgrp)
>
Abstracting away direct uses of TASK_ flags allows us to change the
definitions of the task flags more easily.
Also restructure do_wait() a little
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c |4 +-
fs/proc/array.c|9 +---
fs/proc/base.c
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 10:46:51PM -0400, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
Abstracting away direct uses of TASK_ flags allows us to change the
definitions of the task flags more easily.
--- a/kernel/exit.c
+++ b/kernel/exit.c
@@ -259,7 +259,7 @@ static int has_stopped_jobs(struct pid *pgrp)
On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 22:46 -0400, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
*/
if (task == current) return 0;
- if ((task-state != TASK_STOPPED) (task-state !=
TASK_TRACED)) {
+ if (!is_task_stopped_or_traced(task-state)) {
DPRINT((cannot attach to non-stopped
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 08:35:06PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
Does it take task-state or task ?
task. Clearly I didn't test on ia64. (There was an iteration where it
took task-state, and I guess I missed one). Thanks for pointing out
this oops, I'll fix it for round three.
--
Intel are
27 matches
Mail list logo
