On 08/17, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > > Actually the p->tgid == pid has to be changed to has_group_leader_pid(), > but Oleg pointed out that this is the same and thread_group_leader() > is more preferable.
No, no, sorry for confusion! I was not clear. I meant that thread_group_leader() is imho better for posix timers, but > @@ -865,8 +865,8 @@ static int de_thread(struct task_struct > > write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock); > > - BUG_ON(leader->tgid != tsk->tgid); > - BUG_ON(tsk->pid == tsk->tgid); > + BUG_ON(!same_thread_group(leader, tsk)); > + BUG_ON(thread_group_leader(tsk)); This should be has_group_leader_pid(), BUG_ON() really checks that we didn't confuse ->tgid's. > /* > * An exec() starts a new thread group with the > * TGID of the previous thread group. Rehash the > diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c > index e3009ab..31e7dfe 100644 > --- a/fs/proc/base.c > +++ b/fs/proc/base.c > @@ -2288,7 +2288,7 @@ retry: > * found doesn't happen to be a thread group leader. > * As we don't care in the case of readdir. > */ > - if (!task || !has_group_leader_pid(task)) > + if (!task || !thread_group_leader(task)) And this _must_ be has_group_leader_pid(), this was actually the reason to introduce the "has_group_leader_pid()" helper. Otherwise I think the patch is fine, and the new helper is really useful. Oleg. _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
