[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100127175852.GA7511@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:58:52 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, nhorman@...driver.com,
abelay@....edu, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com, gregkh@...e.de, jmoskovc@...hat.com,
menage@...gle.com, mfasheh@...e.com, mingo@...hat.com,
neilb@...e.de, shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, spock@...too.org,
t.sailer@...mni.ethz.ch, takedakn@...data.co.jp,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: +
exec-allow-core_pipe-recursion-check-to-look-for-a-value-of-1-rather
-than-0.patch added to -mm tree
On 01/27, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> Currently only d_coredump() needs this new feature, but please note
> that ____call_usermodehelper() was already "uglified" for the coredumping
> over the pipe.
>
> If we add sub_info->finit(), then probably we should move the code
> under "if (sub_info->stdin)" from ____call_usermodehelper() to
> core_pipe_setup() ?
And, perhaps, we should not change call_usermodehelper() and all its
callers? If the caller needs ->finit() it can customize subprocess_info
like call_usermodehelper_pipe() already does?
To clarify, I don't have a "strong" opinion, I am just asking.
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