[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081226171604.GE3156@hack.private>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:16:04 +0000
From: Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch] signal: let valid_signal() check more
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 09:56:54AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>* Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> >> @@ -727,7 +727,7 @@ int vt_ioctl(struct tty_struct *tty, struct file * file,
>> >> {
>> >> if (!perm || !capable(CAP_KILL))
>> >> goto eperm;
>> >> - if (!valid_signal(arg) || arg < 1 || arg == SIGKILL)
>> >> + if (!valid_signal((int)arg) || arg == SIGKILL)
>> > ^^^^^
>> >
>> >The patch adds a lot of unnecessary typecasts like this.
>>
>> because it's inline?
>
>Why does your patch add a lot of seemingly unnecessary typecasts? [if your
>short reply was supposed to be an answer to that question then please
>explain it in more detail.]
Hi, Ingo.
because I also changed the type of valid_signal():
-static inline int valid_signal(unsigned long sig)
+static inline int valid_signal(int sig)
I noticed that gcc put this kind of warning into
-Wtraditional-conversion recently, but it is still useful to use
explicit cast, isn't it?
Thanks.
--
"Against stupidity, the gods themselves, contend in vain."
--
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