[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20091216.112402.226798335.d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:24:02 +0900 (JST)
From: Daisuke HATAYAMA <d.hatayama@...fujitsu.com>
To: xiyou.wangcong@...il.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
jdike@...toit.com, tony.luck@...el.com, mhiramat@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 4/4] elf_core_dump(): Add extended numbering
support
I agree with two of three cleanup ideas, but the last.
> > @@ -2079,11 +2139,19 @@ static int elf_core_dump(long signr, struct pt_regs *regs, struct file *file, un
> > if (!elf_core_write_extra_data(file, &size, limit))
> > goto end_coredump;
> >
> > + if (e_phnum == PN_XNUM) {
> > + size += sizeof(*shdr4extnum);
> > + if (size > limit
> > + || !dump_write(file, shdr4extnum, sizeof(*shdr4extnum)))
> > + goto end_coredump;
> > + }
> > +
> > end_coredump:
There are two reasons I wrote like this.
First, the code like
if (size > limit || !dump_write(file, obj, sizeof(*obj)))
goto end_coredump;
is used as the common idiom in thourghout elf_core_dump(). Not
writing goto only at the last use seems unnatural for me.
Second, there is a possibility that new writing operation for section
header table will be added. If the goto is removed now, the patch
writer must rewrite it again.
Thanks for your comments.
--
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