lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Aug]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateMon, 15 Aug 2005 21:38:43 -0700
FromChris Wright <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/6] i386 virtualization - Remove some dead debugging code
* zach@vmware.com (zach@vmware.com) wrote:
> This code is quite dead.  Release_thread is always guaranteed that the mm has
> already been released, thus dead_task->mm will always be NULL.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zachary Amsden <zach@vmware.com>
> Index: linux-2.6.13/arch/i386/kernel/process.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.13.orig/arch/i386/kernel/process.c	2005-08-15 10:46:18.000000000 -0700
> +++ linux-2.6.13/arch/i386/kernel/process.c	2005-08-15 10:48:51.000000000 -0700
> @@ -421,17 +421,7 @@
> 
>  void release_thread(struct task_struct *dead_task)
>  {
> -	if (dead_task->mm) {
> -		// temporary debugging check
> -		if (dead_task->mm->context.size) {
> -			printk("WARNING: dead process %8s still has LDT? <%p/%d>\n",
> -					dead_task->comm,
> -					dead_task->mm->context.ldt,
> -					dead_task->mm->context.size);
> -			BUG();
> -		}
> -	}
> -
> +	BUG_ON(dead_task->mm);

This BUG_ON() has different semantics than old dead one.  Is there a
point?  exit_mm() has already reset this to NULL, no?

>  	release_vm86_irqs(dead_task);
>  }
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-08-16 06:41    [from the cache]
©2003-2008