On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 23:58:34 +0200 Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 10/17, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > > Ah, I see. Here is a draft of an updated patch. > > Do you mean this part > > > sub_info->retval = retval; > > + /* wait_for_helper() will call umh_complete() if UMH_WAIT_PROC. > */ > > + if (wait != UMH_WAIT_PROC) > > + umh_complete(sub_info); > > + if (!retval) > > + return 0; > > do_exit(0); > > } > > ? > > Personally I agree, this looks a bit better to me. But this is cosmetic > and subjective, I leave this to Martin ;) I don't mind the different code order. As you seem to prefer the above I use your version. > I also agree that the changelog could mention exec_mmap. Plus a comment > about UMH_NO_WAIT && sub_info->complete == NULL. So yes, perhaps v2 makes > sense if Martin agrees. Ok, this part is a bit tricky and deserves a comment. I'll create one and send v2. -- blue skies, Martin. "Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin. -- 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/
