[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87inzlg0mo.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:21:35 +0200
From: Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
To: "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
hpa@...or.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, luto@...nel.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
zab@...hat.com, emunson@...mai.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
aarcange@...hat.com, josh@...htriplett.org, xemul@...allels.com,
sfr@...b.auug.org.au, milosz@...in.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
arnd@...db.de, ebiederm@...ssion.com, gorcunov@...nvz.org,
iulia.manda21@...il.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
mguzik@...hat.com, adobriyan@...il.com, dave@...olabs.net,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] vfs: Define new syscall getumask.
* Richard W. M. Jones:
> +SYSCALL_DEFINE0(getumask)
> +{
> + return current->fs->umask;
> +}
The convention seems to be to call current_umask(), instead of
inlining its contents.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists