Christian Brauner [off-list ref] writes:

On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 03:06:46PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:

quoted

Christian Brauner [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Sun, Mar 08, 2020 at 04:36:55PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:

quoted

These functions have very little to do with de_thread move them out
of de_thread an into flush_old_exec proper so it can be more clearly
seen what flush_old_exec is doing.

Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <redacted>
---
 fs/exec.c | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
index ff74b9a74d34..215d86f77b63 100644
--- a/fs/exec.c
+++ b/fs/exec.c

@@ -1189,11 +1189,6 @@ static int de_thread(struct task_struct *tsk)

While you're cleaning up de_thread() wouldn't it be good to also take
the opportunity and remove the task argument from de_thread(). It's only
ever used with current. Could be done in one of your patches or as a
separate patch.

How does that affect the code generation?

The same way renaming "tsk" to "me" does.

quoted

My sense is that computing current once in flush_old_exec is much
better than computing it in each function flush_old_exec calls.
I remember that computing current used to be not expensive but
noticable.

For clarity I can see renaming tsk to me.  So that it is clear we are
talking about the current process, and not some arbitrary process.

For clarity since de_thread() uses "tsk" giving the impression that any
task can be dethreaded while it's only ever used with current. It's just
a suggestion since you're doing the rename tsk->me anyway it would fit
with the series. You do whatever you want though.
(I just remember that the same request was made once to changes I did:
Don't pass current as arg when it's the only task passed.)

That's fair.

And I completely agree that we should at least rename tsk to me.
Just for clarity.

My apologies if I am a little short.  My little son has been an extra
handful lately.

Eric