[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100203200954.GA15000@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 21:09:54 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
jmoskovc@...hat.com, mingo@...hat.com, drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, t.sailer@...mni.ethz.ch, abelay@....edu,
gregkh@...e.de, spock@...too.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
neilb@...e.de, mfasheh@...e.com, menage@...gle.com,
shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, takedakn@...data.co.jp
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] exec: refactor how call_usermodehelper works, and
update the sense of the core_pipe recursion check (v3)
On 02/02, Neil Horman wrote:
>
> +void call_usermodehelper_setfns(struct subprocess_info *info,
> + int (*init)(struct subprocess_info *info),
> + void (*cleanup)(struct subprocess_info *info),
> + void *data);
> ...
> +call_usermodehelper_fns(char *path, char **argv, char **envp,
> + enum umh_wait wait,
> + int (*init)(struct subprocess_info *info),
> + void (*cleanup)(struct subprocess_info *), void *data)
> ...
> + call_usermodehelper_setfns(info, init, cleanup, data);
> return call_usermodehelper_exec(info, wait);
> }
Unless I misread the patch, this is the only caller of _setfns(), and
this helper is really trivial and probably deserves to be inline. But
this is very minor.
Personally I think these patches are nice. Not only this series adds
the new functionality, in my opinion it also cleanups and simplifies
the code.
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