[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130531160736.c4588108643abe14e5bfa455@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 16:07:36 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: liguang <lig.fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] sys: remove unnecesscary parameter of set_one_prio
On Thu, 30 May 2013 01:08:25 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-05-30 at 15:58 +0800, liguang wrote:
> []
> > diff --git a/kernel/sys.c b/kernel/sys.c
> []
> > -static int set_one_prio(struct task_struct *p, int niceval, int error)
> > +static int set_one_prio(struct task_struct *p, int niceval)
>
> Umm, error is forwarded through do_each loops.
>
> Are you sure you can do this without
> changing any return code behaviors?
yes, you're right. The first time around, -ESRCH gets rewritten to 0
and the zero propagates, as long as nobody hits an error which isn't
-ESRCH. I'm not sure this was the most straightforward possible
implementation :(
--
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