From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261595AbUK1XUs (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:20:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261597AbUK1XUr (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:20:47 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:37296 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261595AbUK1XUo (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:20:44 -0500 Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:20:27 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Manfred Spraul cc: akpm@osdl.org, mingo@elte.hu, roland@redhat.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] use pid_alive in proc_pid_status In-Reply-To: <41A9B589.1090005@colorfullife.com> Message-ID: References: <41A9B589.1090005@colorfullife.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Manfred Spraul wrote: > > What do you think? Are you aware of further instances where p->pid is > still used to check if a thread is alive? Looks good, except I hate how you have a function that does a single pointer derefence and a test. There are cases where inline functions bloat up the code, but there are cases where a function call is bigger than the function body. This seems to be one of them. Linus