[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1178912735.28304.4.camel@johannes.berg>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 21:45:35 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>,
Joel Becker <joel.becker@...cle.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 7/7] tidy up usermode helper waiting a bit
[/me wonders why he was CC'ed]
> /* CLONE_VFORK: wait until the usermode helper has execve'd
> * successfully We need the data structures to stay around
> * until that is done. */
> - if (wait)
> + if (wait == UMH_WAIT_PROC)
> pid = kernel_thread(wait_for_helper, sub_info,
> CLONE_FS | CLONE_FILES | SIGCHLD);
> else
> pid = kernel_thread(____call_usermodehelper, sub_info,
> CLONE_VFORK | SIGCHLD);
Isn't that a change in behaviour? Previously it said
if (wait)
<=> if (wait != 0)
<=> if (wait != UMH_WAIT_EXEC)
or am I missing something?
johannes
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (191 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists