1. Kill the first "vma != NULL" check. Firstly this is not possible,
m_next() won't be called if ->start() or the previous ->next()
returns NULL.
And if it was possible the 2nd "vma != tail_vma" check is buggy,
we should not wrongly return ->tail_vma.
2. Make this function readable. The logic is very simple, we should
return check "vma != tail" once and return "vm_next || tail_vma".
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@openvz.org>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
static void *m_next(struct seq_file *m, void *v, loff_t *pos)
{
struct proc_maps_private *priv = m->private;
- struct vm_area_struct *vma = v;
struct vm_area_struct *tail_vma = priv->tail_vma;
- struct vm_area_struct *next;
+ struct vm_area_struct *vma = v, *next = NULL;
(*pos)++;
- if (vma && (vma != tail_vma) && vma->vm_next)
- return vma->vm_next;
+ if (vma != tail_vma)
+ next = vma->vm_next ?: tail_vma;
- next = (vma != tail_vma) ? tail_vma : NULL;
if (!next)
vma_stop(priv);
return next;