On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 14:05:39 +0300 Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 02/06, S?bastien Dugu? wrote:
> >
> > @@ -970,8 +969,14 @@ static long aio_setup_sigevent(struct ai
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > target = sigevent_find_task(&event);
> >
> > - if (unlikely(!target))
> > + if (unlikely(!target)) {
> > + /*
> > + * Revert notify to SIGEV_NONE so that really_put_req()
> > + * knows that no ref has been taken on a task.
> > + */
> > + notify->notify = SIGEV_NONE;
> > goto out_unlock;
> > + }
>
> Very minor nit, feel free to ignore.
>
> Isn't it better to move "notify->* = event.*;" down, when we know that
> target != NULL. Imho, a bit easier to follow. This way we don't need to
> reset notify->notify = SIGEV_NONE.
>
> aio_setup_sigevent() relies on the fact that ->notify = SIGEV_NONE on
> entry anyway.
Yep, right, it will make things cleaner.
Thanks,
Sébastien.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
