Re: [PATCH 1/4] check_unsafe_exec: use while_each_thread() rather than next_thread()

2013-11-22 Thread KOSAKI Motohiro
(11/22/2013 3:24 PM), Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 11/22, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: >> >> (11/22/2013 12:54 PM), Oleg Nesterov wrote: >>> next_thread() should be avoided, change check_unsafe_exec() >>> to use while_each_thread(). This also saves 32 bytes. >> >> Just curious. >> Why it should be avoided?

Re: [PATCH 1/4] check_unsafe_exec: use while_each_thread() rather than next_thread()

2013-11-22 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On 11/22, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > (11/22/2013 12:54 PM), Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > next_thread() should be avoided, change check_unsafe_exec() > > to use while_each_thread(). This also saves 32 bytes. > > Just curious. > Why it should be avoided? Just for cleaner code? Nobody except signal->curr

Re: [PATCH 1/4] check_unsafe_exec: use while_each_thread() rather than next_thread()

2013-11-22 Thread KOSAKI Motohiro
(11/22/2013 12:54 PM), Oleg Nesterov wrote: > next_thread() should be avoided, change check_unsafe_exec() > to use while_each_thread(). This also saves 32 bytes. Just curious. Why it should be avoided? Just for cleaner code? Or is there serious issue? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the li

[PATCH 1/4] check_unsafe_exec: use while_each_thread() rather than next_thread()

2013-11-22 Thread Oleg Nesterov
next_thread() should be avoided, change check_unsafe_exec() to use while_each_thread(). This also saves 32 bytes. Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov --- fs/exec.c |3 ++- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c index 1dee8ef..0cd9c25 100644 --- a/fs/exe