Commit c986c14a authored by Oleg Nesterov's avatar Oleg Nesterov Committed by Linus Torvalds

proc: change first_tid() to use while_each_thread() rather than next_thread()

Rerwrite the main loop to use while_each_thread() instead of
next_thread().  We are going to fix or replace while_each_thread(),
next_thread() should be avoided whenever possible.
Signed-off-by: default avatarOleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Cc: Sameer Nanda <snanda@chromium.org>
Cc: Sergey Dyasly <dserrg@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
parent 940fe479
......@@ -3106,23 +3106,23 @@ static struct task_struct *first_tid(struct task_struct *leader,
}
/* If nr exceeds the number of threads there is nothing todo */
pos = NULL;
if (nr && nr >= get_nr_threads(leader))
goto out;
goto fail;
/* It could be unhashed before we take rcu lock */
if (!pid_alive(leader))
goto out;
goto fail;
/* If we haven't found our starting place yet start
* with the leader and walk nr threads forward.
*/
for (pos = leader; nr > 0; --nr) {
pos = next_thread(pos);
if (pos == leader) {
pos = NULL;
goto out;
}
}
pos = leader;
do {
if (nr-- <= 0)
goto found;
} while_each_thread(leader, pos);
fail:
pos = NULL;
goto out;
found:
get_task_struct(pos);
out:
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment