On 02/25, David Howells wrote: > > Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demar...@profusion.mobi> wrote: > > > This patch fixes both call_usermodehelper_fns() to never call the > > cleanup function in case retval == -ENOMEM and also the callers to > > actually check the return value of this function. > > I suspect it's probably better to always call the cleanup function from > call_usermodehelper_fns() rather than have the cleanup done by the caller in > some circumstances and not others - would it make sense to change the cleanup > function to take the pointer to the caller data rather than to take the > subprocess_info struct?
I this this will comlicate the logic even more, the "caller data" has to be kmalloced/kfreed as well. Btw. __orderly_poweroff() doesn't need any tricks, afaics. I'll send a simple cleanup in a minute. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
