linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] usermodehelper: kill umh_wait, renumber UMH

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87ty2sc37m.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Date:	Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:39:17 +1030
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	apw@...onical.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com, fhrbata@...hat.com,
	john.johansen@...onical.com, penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp,
	rientjes@...gle.com, tj@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] usermodehelper: kill umh_wait, renumber UMH_* constants

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:48:21 +0100, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> No functional changes. It is not sane to use UMH_KILLABLE with
> enum umh_wait, but obviously we do not want another argument in
> call_usermodehelper_* helpers. Kill this enum, use the plain int.

Seems like a step backwards.  Perhaps reorder the enum, but implying an
explicit range of values explicit by using an enum seems good.

But it's a minor gripe, feel free to ignore.

Entire series:
Acked-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>

Thanks for this!
Rusty.
--
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/