Messages in this thread | | | From | John Stultz <> | Date | Fri, 20 Jan 2017 14:32:15 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] omit POSIX timer stuff from task_struct when disabled |
| |
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> wrote: > When CONFIG_POSIX_TIMERS is disabled, it is preferable to remove related > structures from struct task_struct and struct signal_struct as they > won't contain anything useful and shouldn't be relied upon by mistake. > Code still referencing those structures is also disabled here. > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org> > [snip] > diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c > index 11c5c8ab82..8e333e55a9 100644 > --- a/kernel/fork.c > +++ b/kernel/fork.c > @@ -1309,6 +1309,7 @@ void __cleanup_sighand(struct sighand_struct *sighand) > */ > static void posix_cpu_timers_init_group(struct signal_struct *sig) > { > +#ifdef CONFIG_POSIX_TIMERS > unsigned long cpu_limit; > > cpu_limit = READ_ONCE(sig->rlim[RLIMIT_CPU].rlim_cur); > @@ -1321,6 +1322,7 @@ static void posix_cpu_timers_init_group(struct signal_struct *sig) > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sig->cpu_timers[0]); > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sig->cpu_timers[1]); > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sig->cpu_timers[2]); > +#endif > }
So apologies for not catching this earlier. I was just queuing this up, when I noticed the style issue here.
Aren't in-function ifdefs frowned upon? Wouldn't it be better to do: #ifdef CONFIG_POSIX_TIMERS static void posix_cpu_timers_init_group(struct signal_struct *sig) { ... } #else static void posix_cpu_timers_init_group(struct signal_struct *sig) {} #endif
And similar for most of the ifdef'ed out functions in this patch?
thanks -john
| |