Date:   Thu, 26 Jan 2023 15:46:56 +0100
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Cc:     tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] posix-timers: Prefer delivery of signals to the
 current thread
Message-ID: <20230126144655.GA4069@redhat.com>
References: <20230112112411.813356-1-dvyukov@google.com>
 <20230126105128.2249938-1-dvyukov@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230126105128.2249938-1-dvyukov@google.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk

On 01/26, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
>  	t = pid_task(pid, type);
> +	if (t && type != PIDTYPE_PID && same_thread_group(t, current))
> +		t = current;
>  	if (!t || !likely(lock_task_sighand(t, &flags)))
>  		goto ret;

Feel free to ignore, this is cosmetic/subjective, but

	t = pid_task(pid, type);
	if (!t)
		goto ret;
	if (type == PIDTYPE_TGID && same_thread_group(t, current))
		t = current;
	if (!likely(lock_task_sighand(t, &flags)))
		goto ret;

looks a bit more readable/clean to me.

LGTM. Lets wait for Thomas verdict.

Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>