If we provide __get_task_comm(), we can't remove memset() forever.
True enough. I'll fix that comment up then.
task_lock(tsk);
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&tsk->comm_lock, flags);
This is strange order. task_lock() doesn't disable interrupt.
Strange order? Can you explain why you think that is? Having comm_lock
as an inner-most lock seems quite reasonable, given the limited nature
of what it protects.
spinlock -> irq_disable is wrong order.
local_irq_save()
task_lock()
spin_lock(task->comm)
is better. I think.
I mean if the task get interrupt at following point,
task_lock(tsk);
// HERE
spin_lock_irqsave(&tsk->comm_lock, flags);
the task hold task-lock long time rather than expected.
And, can you please document why we need interrupt disabling?
Since we might access current->comm from irq context. Where would you
like this documented? Just there in the code?
I'm prefer code comment. but another way is also good.
Thanks.
--
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>