On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, john stultz wrote: > So thinking further, this can be simplified by adding the seqlock first, > and then retaining the task_locking only in the set_task_comm path until > all comm accessors are converted to using get_task_comm. > On second thought, I think it would be better to just retain using a spinlock but instead of using alloc_lock, introduce a new spinlock to task_struct for the sole purpose of protecting comm. And, instead, of using get_task_comm() to write into a preallocated buffer, I think it would be easier in the vast majority of cases that you'll need to convert to just provide task_comm_lock(p) and task_comm_unlock(p) so that p->comm can be dereferenced safely. get_task_comm() could use that interface itself and then write into a preallocated buffer. The problem with using get_task_comm() everywhere is it requires 16 additional bytes to be allocated on the stack in hundreds of locations around the kernel which may or may not be safe. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>