Re: [Lse-tech] [PATCH 04/11] Task watchers: Make process events configurable as a module

On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 19:54 -0500, Chase Venters wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 June 2006 18:54, Matt Helsley wrote:
> 
> > +static void cn_proc_fini(void)
> > +{
> > +	int err;
> > +
> > +	err = unregister_task_watcher(&cn_proc_nb);
> > +	if (err != 0)
> > +		printk(KERN_WARNING
> > +		       "cn_proc failed to unregister its task notify block\n");
> 
> How about if (err), or if (unregister_task_watcher(&cn_proc_nb))?

I don't see any worthwhile benefit to the former and I've seen feedback
that the latter is less readable.

> > +	cn_del_callback(&cn_proc_event_id);
> > +}
> > +
> >  module_init(cn_proc_init);
> > +module_exit(cn_proc_fini);
> 
> Thanks,
> Chase


-
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/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH 04/11] Task watchers: Make process events configurable as a module
    • From: Matt Helsley <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 04/11] Task watchers: Make process events configurable as a module
    • From: Chase Venters <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [Lse-tech] [PATCH 08/11] Task watchers: Register profile as a task watcher
• Next by Date: [PATCH 1/3] kernel-doc for lib/bitmap.c
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 04/11] Task watchers: Make process events configurable as a module
• Next by thread: [PATCH 03/11] Task watchers: Refactor process events
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]