Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 Aug 2019 10:52:13 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/9] sched/core: add is_kthread() helper |
| |
* Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 01:26:43PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:43 PM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote: > > > Code checking whether a task is a kthread isn't very consistent. Some > > > code correctly tests task->flags & PF_THREAD, while other code checks > > > task->mm (which can be true for a kthread which calls use_mm()). > > > > > > So that we can clean this up and keep the code easy to follow, let's add > > > an obvious helper function to test whether a task is a kthread. > > > Subsequent patches will use this as part of cleaning up and correcting > > > open-coded tests. > > > > > > At the same time, let's fix up the kerneldoc for is_idle_task() for > > > consistency with the new helper, using true/false rather than 0/1, given > > > the functions return bool. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> > > > > Thanks for your patch! > > > > > --- a/include/linux/sched.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h > > > @@ -1621,13 +1621,24 @@ extern struct task_struct *idle_task(int cpu); > > > * is_idle_task - is the specified task an idle task? > > > * @p: the task in question. > > > * > > > - * Return: 1 if @p is an idle task. 0 otherwise. > > > + * Return: true if @p is an idle task, false otherwise. > > > */ > > > static inline bool is_idle_task(const struct task_struct *p) > > > { > > > return !!(p->flags & PF_IDLE); > > > } > > > > > > +/** > > > + * is_kthread - is the specified task a kthread > > > + * @p: the task in question. > > > + * > > > + * Return: true if @p is a kthread, false otherwise. > > > + */ > > > +static inline bool is_kthread(const struct task_struct *p) > > > +{ > > > + return !!(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD); > > > > The !! is not really needed. > > Probably you followed is_idle_task() above (where it's also not needed). > > Indeed! I'm aware of the implicit bool conversion, but kept that for > consistency. > > Peter, Ingo, do you have a preference?
So the !! pattern is useful where the return value is an integer (i.e. there's a risk of non-bool use) - but the return value is an explicit bool here, so !! is IMO an entirely superfluous obfuscation.
Should probably be fixed for is_idle_task() as well?
Thanks,
Ingo
| |