[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wi2OpVrBD38A5Re4=rSSWnjwg3GcmsxtAPeHVSmQZy1VA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 13:04:24 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@...il.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>,
alpha <linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
Ley Foon Tan <ley.foon.tan@...el.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] signal: Factor start_group_exit out of complete_signal
I don't really mind the patch, but this patch doesn't actually do what
it says it does.
It factors out start_group_exit_locked() - which all looks good.
But then it also creates that new start_group_exit() function and
makes the declaration for it, and nothing actually uses it. Yet.
I'd do that second part later when you actually introduce the use in
the next patch (5/9).
Hmm?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists