lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] make checkpatch warn about access to current->comm
On 27 Jan 09 at 07:45, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Kyle McMartin wrote:
>>
>> Suggest using the get_task_comm accessor versus direct access to
>> current->comm.

> I think "current->comm" is fine, and not racy.
>
> It only gets racy when you ask for the name of _another_ task.
>
> And quite frankly, I don't think anybody but /proc does that anyway. I
> think this whole "get_task_comm()" thing is overrated. Most people are
> better off doing just "current->comm".

This issue only came up because for someone like me it's not obvious at
all that using "current->comm" is safe and the comment in sched.h
explicitly points out that task_struct.comm should be accessed with
[gs]et_task_comm.

Christoph


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-27 19:19    [W:0.052 / U:0.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site