[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080311175629.GB586@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:56:29 +0300
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] signals: fold complete_signal() into send_signal/do_send_sigqueue
On 03/10, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> This and 1-3/6 look OK to me. But, since this one appears to be changing
> the sense of the return value from send_signal, I think you should at least
> take the opportunity to add a comment to send_signal saying clearly what
> its return conventions are.
Actually, this patch restores the meaning of the return value, it was temporary
changed by the previous cleanups in -mm tree.
With this patch send_signal() return either 0 or error, as it historically was.
Oleg.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists