Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:54:23 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: Darren Hart <darren@dvhart.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@redhat.com>,
        Larry Woodman <lwoodman@redhat.com>, Mateusz Guzik <mguzik@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] futex: check PF_KTHREAD rather than !p->mm to
	filter out kthreads
Message-ID: <20150214215423.GA18200@redhat.com>
References: <20150202140515.GA26398@redhat.com> <20150202140536.GA26406@redhat.com> <1423936866.2046.88.camel@stgolabs.net> <20150214205745.GA15695@redhat.com> <1423948516.2046.90.camel@stgolabs.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1423948516.2046.90.camel@stgolabs.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 739
Lines: 20

On 02/14, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 21:57 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Perhaps... but PF_KTHREAD looks self-documented too ;)
>
> Well the idea was to standardize how we check for a kthreads, as opposed
> to improving readability or such. Just a suggestion.

I understand, and of course I won't argue if you add a helper.

I meant that checking for a kthread is already standardized: flags & PF_KTREAD.
Not sure this needs a helper, but I again I won't argue.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/