Refine current-task check in mo_task_suspend()

[vicLin8712]

The previous implementation compared kcb->task_current with the task’s list node in the global task list. A list node is only a linkage element, not a stable identifier for a task, so this comparison is not appropriate.

This patch updates the check to compare the task's data structure (TCB), which properly represents the task identity.

---

Summary by cubic

Compare the task’s TCB instead of its list node in mo_task_suspend() when checking if the target is the running task. This clarifies intent and avoids using list linkage as identity; behavior is unchanged.

^{Written for commit bf76c93. Summary will update automatically on new commits.}

[cubic-dev-ai]

No issues found across 1 file

[jserv]

I defer to @HeatCrab for confirmation.

[HeatCrab]

LGTM!

[visitorckw]

I'm curious, under what circumstances would (kcb->task_current->data == task) != (kcb->task_current == node) ?

[vicLin8712]

I'm curious, under what circumstances would (kcb->task_current->data == task) != (kcb->task_current == node) ?

Generally, there is no possibility that your inequivalent happens in the current codebase.

The intention of this patch is not to fix a real bug, but to correct the semantics so that the check aligns with the meaning of the is_current. The is_current parameter is conceptually about whether the task being operated on is the currently running task, not whether the list node happens to match task_current.

So the change is aiming to reflect the intended abstraction (task-level comparison), even though both expressions are equivalent in the current code base.

If I misunderstood the intended meaning of is_current (e.g., if it was supposed to be node-based), please let me know.

[visitorckw]

Thanks for the clarification.

Although I noticed the title starts with "Refine" instead of "Fix", the wording in the description left me a bit confused as to whether:

a) In rare cases, (kcb->task_current->data == task) != (kcb->task_current == node) could actually happen.
b) The equality always holds, and this is merely to improve code readability.

It turns out to be the latter. However, I would prefer the commit message to be more explicit that the mismatch never actually occurs, and that this change is purely for readability.

[vicLin8712]

Thanks for the clarification.

Although I noticed the title starts with "Refine" instead of "Fix", the wording in the description left me a bit confused as to whether:

a) In rare cases, (kcb->task_current->data == task) != (kcb->task_current == node) could actually happen. b) The equality always holds, and this is merely to improve code readability.

It turns out to be the latter. However, I would prefer the commit message to be more explicit that the mismatch never actually occurs, and that this change is purely for readability.

Thanks for the feedback.

I've updated the commit message to clarify that the two conditions are always equivalent and that this change is purely for readability.

[jserv]

Thank @vicLin8712 for contributing!