On 02/25, Lucas De Marchi wrote: > > Yep. The current interface is confusing. I agree that a separate > setup() + exec() would make more sense.
Great, > > @@ -98,8 +98,14 @@ static int call_modprobe(char *module_na > > argv[3] = module_name; /* check free_modprobe_argv() */ > > argv[4] = NULL; > > > > - return call_usermodehelper_fns(modprobe_path, argv, envp, > > - wait | UMH_KILLABLE, NULL, free_modprobe_argv, NULL); > > + info = call_usermodehelper_setup(...); // better name, please... > > + if (!info) > > + goto free_modname; > > + > > + return call_usermodehelper_exec(info, wait); > > I'd say that in these cases the "call_" prefix has no meaning, and we > could just use a "usermodehelper" as the namespace. Oh, I agree with any naming. So, I hope you will send v2. I'd suggest to split the fixes. 1/3 should create/export the new helpers, and 2-3 fix should call_modprobe() and call_usermodehelper_keys(). But this is up to you, I won't insist. 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/
