Differential D31495 Diff 93545 sys/kern/subr_kdb.c

Changeset View

Standalone View

sys/kern/subr_kdb.c

	Show First 20 Lines • Show All 602 Lines • ▼ Show 20 Lines

	struct thread *			struct thread *
	kdb_thr_first(void)			kdb_thr_first(void)
	{			{
	struct proc *p;			struct proc *p;
	struct thread *thr;			struct thread *thr;
	u_int i;			u_int i;

				/* This function may be called early. */
				if (pidhashtbl == NULL)
				markjUnsubmitted Done Inline Actions Why not check pidhashtbl != NULL instead? markj: Why not check pidhashtbl != NULL instead?
				mhorneAuthorUnsubmitted Done Inline Actions Sure, this is slightly preferable. mhorne: Sure, this is slightly preferable.
				return (&thread0);

	for (i = 0; i <= pidhash; i++) {			for (i = 0; i <= pidhash; i++) {
	LIST_FOREACH(p, &pidhashtbl[i], p_hash) {			LIST_FOREACH(p, &pidhashtbl[i], p_hash) {
	thr = FIRST_THREAD_IN_PROC(p);			thr = FIRST_THREAD_IN_PROC(p);
	if (thr != NULL)			if (thr != NULL)
	return (thr);			return (thr);
	}			}
	}			}
	return (NULL);			return (NULL);
	Show All 25 Lines
	struct thread *			struct thread *
	kdb_thr_next(struct thread *thr)			kdb_thr_next(struct thread *thr)
	{			{
	struct proc *p;			struct proc *p;
	u_int hash;			u_int hash;

	p = thr->td_proc;			p = thr->td_proc;
	thr = TAILQ_NEXT(thr, td_plist);			thr = TAILQ_NEXT(thr, td_plist);
	if (thr != NULL)			if (thr != NULL)
				markjUnsubmitted Done Inline Actions Similarly here, we could check `pidhashtbl != NULL` after checking `TAILQ_NEXT(thr, td_plist)`. markj: Similarly here, we could check `pidhashtbl != NULL` after checking `TAILQ_NEXT(thr, td_plist)`.
				mhorneAuthorUnsubmitted Done Inline Actions Why is it better after this check? It doesn't seem possible for `td_plist` to be populated but `pidhashtbl` be `NULL`. mhorne: Why is it better after this check? It doesn't seem possible for `td_plist` to be populated but…
				markjUnsubmitted Done Inline Actions It's not possible today, it just seemed very slightly cleaner to me to not make that assumption, supposing that someone might someday add a static `thread1` to `proc0` or something. markj: It's not possible today, it just seemed very slightly cleaner to me to not make that assumption…
	return (thr);			return (thr);
				if (pidhashtbl == NULL)
				return (NULL);
	hash = p->p_pid & pidhash;			hash = p->p_pid & pidhash;
	for (;;) {			for (;;) {
	p = LIST_NEXT(p, p_hash);			p = LIST_NEXT(p, p_hash);
	while (p == NULL) {			while (p == NULL) {
	if (++hash > pidhash)			if (++hash > pidhash)
	return (NULL);			return (NULL);
	p = LIST_FIRST(&pidhashtbl[hash]);			p = LIST_FIRST(&pidhashtbl[hash]);
	}			}
	▲ Show 20 Lines • Show All 90 Lines • Show Last 20 Lines