Hi!
> > > Special thanks to Uli Luckas <[email protected]> for reviewing the previous
> > > versions of this patch and for very useful comments.
> > ...
> > > Reviewed-by: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
> >
> > Eh, not sure this header is worth anything. Sometimes I'm lazy and
> > stop when I see first problem.
> >
> > > switch (action) {
> > > case PM_HIBERNATION_PREPARE:
> > > case PM_SUSPEND_PREPARE:
> > > usermodehelper_disabled = 1;
> > > - return NOTIFY_OK;
> > > + retval = wait_event_timeout(running_helpers_waitq,
> > > + atomic_read(&running_helpers) == 0,
> >
> > Are you sure here? What happens when atomic variable changes between
> > the atomic_read and the function call?
>
> Er, this is a macro. :-)
>
> In fact we rely only on atomic_read(&running_helpers) being still zero after
> helper_finished() has woken us up, but I think that's acceptable.
>
> IOW, if the wait_event_timeout() returns with retval different from zero, this
> means that atomic_read(&running_helpers) returned zero at one point after
> we'd set usermodehelper_disabled, which is enough. OTOH, if it doesn't
Ok, can you write short comment explaining that? /* We have set
usermodehelper_disabled, so any new usermode helpers are not a problem
*/.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
