From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1757111AbcHWPDP (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:03:15 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35670 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1753532AbcHWPDN (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:03:13 -0400
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 16:52:36 +0200
From: Mateusz Guzik <mguzik@redhat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru>,
        Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>, ebiederm@xmission.com,
        sgrubb@redhat.com, pmoore@redhat.com, eparis@redhat.com,
        luto@amacapital.net, linux-audit@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] mm: introduce get_task_exe_file
Message-ID: <20160823145235.t3xs3fcf24qkaaw2@mguzik>
References: <1471962039-14940-1-git-send-email-mguzik@redhat.com>
 <1471962039-14940-2-git-send-email-mguzik@redhat.com>
 <20160823144812.GA2088@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160823144812.GA2088@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0.1 (2016-04-01)
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.28]); Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:52:43 +0000 (UTC)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 04:48:13PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/23, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> >
> > +struct file *get_task_exe_file(struct task_struct *task)
> > +{
> > +	struct file *exe_file = NULL;
> > +	struct mm_struct *mm;
> > +
> > +	task_lock(task);
> > +	mm = task->mm;
> > +	if (mm) {
> > +		if (!(task->flags & PF_KTHREAD))
> > +			exe_file = get_mm_exe_file(mm);
> > +	}
> > +	task_unlock(task);
> > +	return exe_file;
> > +}
> 
> I can't believe I am going to comment the coding style but I can't resist ;)
> 
> 	if (mm && !(task->flags & PF_KTHREAD)))
> 		exe_file = get_mm_exe_file(mm);
> 
> looks a bit simpler to me. But this is purely cosmetic and subjective,
> both patches look good to me.
> 

Actually I did it for some consistency with get_task_mm.

The check can likely be done prior to taking the lock in both functions
and that would clean them up a little bit, but I wanted to avoid nit
picking... :>

> Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
> 

Thanks

-- 
Mateusz Guzik