On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 8:30 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 11:17:15AM -0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > > > I don't think this is a problem? As long as a thread exists somewhere > > > with `current` being equal to the task, we should be fine? > > > > > > > I think I had a misunderstanding on what you meant by "operations > > that are only valid on the current task", you mean these operations can > > be run by other threads, but it has to be *on* a task_struct that's > > "currently running", right? BTW, you probably want to reword a bit, > > because the "current" task may be blocked, so technically it's not > > "running". > > > > Basically, the operations that `CurrentTask` have are the methods that > > are safe to call (even on a different thread) for the "current" task, as > > long as it exists (not dead or exited). In that definition, not being > > `Sync` is fine. > > > > But I have to admit I'm a bit worried that people may be confused, and > > add new methods that can be only run by the current thread in the > > future. > > I agree, I think CurrentTask should refer to "current". Or we'll > confuse everyone. Would ActiveTask be a good name for this CurrentTask? I mean, it does refer to current. Any time you have a `&CurrentTask`, then you know that you got the pointer by reading the value of `current`, and that the task you got it from hasn't returned to userspace (or otherwise exited) yet. But the name ActiveTask also makes sense I guess. Alice
