Re: [PATCH 11/17] bpf/task_iter: In task_file_seq_get_next use fnext_task

2020-08-18 Thread Eric W. Biederman
kernel test robot writes: > Hi "Eric, > > Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve: > > [auto build test WARNING on bpf/master] > [also build test WARNING on linus/master v5.9-rc1 next-20200817] > [cannot apply to bpf-next/master linux/master] > [If your patch is applied to the wrong

Re: [PATCH 11/17] bpf/task_iter: In task_file_seq_get_next use fnext_task

2020-08-17 Thread kernel test robot
Hi "Eric, Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve: [auto build test WARNING on bpf/master] [also build test WARNING on linus/master v5.9-rc1 next-20200817] [cannot apply to bpf-next/master linux/master] [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note. And when

[PATCH 11/17] bpf/task_iter: In task_file_seq_get_next use fnext_task

2020-08-17 Thread Eric W. Biederman
When discussing[1] exec and posix file locks it was realized that none of the callers of get_files_struct fundamentally needed to call get_files_struct, and that by switching them to helper functions instead it will both simplify their code and remove unnecessary increments of files_struct.count.