linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Make prepare_namespace() wait for devices

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 31 May 2007 08:51:14 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Pierre Ossman <drzeus-list@...eus.cx>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make prepare_namespace() wait for devices

On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:20:48 +0200 Pierre Ossman <drzeus-list@...eus.cx> wrote:
>

(top-posting reversed)

> Pierre Ossman wrote:
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> Whatever.  I think you can work it out ;)   
> >>
> >>   
> > 
> > Bare with me, I just woke up ;)
> > 
> >> while (driver_probe_done() || (ROOT_DEV = name_to_dev_t(...)) == 0)
> >>
> >> perhaps?
> >>
> >> The loop-which-sleeps within a loop-which-sleeps seems poorly thought out?
> >>   
> > 
> > I'd say a matter of taste. I'm not a big fan och cramming things into
> > the while() clause.
> > 
> > The idea with the double loops was to keep this thread asleep when we
> > could detect meaningful work elsewhere in the kernel. You could just
> > remove the inner-most loop if it offends you. :)
> > 
>
> What was the verdict here? Were you satisfied with this or do you need a change?


I was kinda hoing to see version #2 with that funny loop cleaned up a bit?


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/