Hi Tejun,
>> +/* Ditto for the can_fork/cancel_fork/reapply_fork callbacks. */
>> +static int need_canfork_callback __read_mostly;
>> +static int need_cancelfork_callback __read_mostly;
>
> And given that the reason we have these masks is avoiding iteration in
> relatively hot paths. Does cancelfork mask make sense?
Do you still want me to remove it? I only added it because it made the
callback code more consistent for cancel_fork and can_fork.
>> +void cgroup_cancel_fork(struct task_struct *child,
>> + void *ss_state[CGROUP_PREFORK_COUNT])
>> +{
>> + struct cgroup_subsys *ss;
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + for_each_subsys_which(need_cancelfork_callback, ss, i) {
>> + void *state = NULL;
>> +
>> + if (CGROUP_PREFORK_START <= i && i < CGROUP_PREFORK_END)
>> + state = ss_state[i - CGROUP_PREFORK_START];
>
> Maybe we want a helper callback which does
>
> if (CGROUP_PREFORK_START <= ssid && ssid < CGROUP_PREFORK_END)
> return &ss_state[ssid - CGROUP_PREFORK_START];
> return NULL;
What would be a nice name for it? I can't think of anything better
than __get_ss_private() and __get_ss_privatep().
--
Aleksa Sarai (cyphar)
www.cyphar.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
