On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 08:37:19AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Dominik Brodowski <li...@dominikbrodowski.net> wrote:
>
> > --- a/fs/open.c
> > +++ b/fs/open.c
> > @@ -1200,7 +1200,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE1(close, unsigned int, fd)
> >
> > return retval;
> > }
> > -EXPORT_SYMBOL(sys_close);
> > +
> >
> > /*
>
> Nit: this introduces a stray newline.
>
> > --- a/include/linux/syscalls.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/syscalls.h
> > @@ -1042,4 +1042,10 @@ static inline long ksys_lchown(const char __user
> > *filename, uid_t user,
> > return do_fchownat(AT_FDCWD, filename, user, group,
> > AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW);
> > }
> > +
> > +extern int __close_fd(struct files_struct *files, unsigned int fd);
> > +static inline int ksys_close(unsigned int fd)
> > +{
> > + return __close_fd(current->files, fd);
> > +}
>
> Would be nice to reuse that stray newline after the __close_fd() prototype
> for the
> canonical stylistic separation of declarations from definitions.
>
> It would also be very nice to add a short comment before ksys_close() that
> explains how it differs from sys_close(). This should reduce the amount of
> cargo-cult copying of existing ksys_close()/sys_close() patterns.
Thanks, have done that:
/*
* In contrast to sys_close(), this stub does not check whether the
syscall
* should or should not be restarted, but returns the raw error codes
from
* __close_fd().
*/
Is that ok?
Thanks,
Dominik
