Re: [PATCH] loop.c: kernel_thread() retval check

Alan,

On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 07:15:17PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Acked-by: Alan Cox <[email protected]>

Thanks.

> but should go into 2.6-mm and be tested in 2.6-mm before 2.4 backport.

Unfortunately, I do not intend to prepare/test/submit a revision of the
patch for 2.6-mm, and I might only work on a 2.6 patch in a few months
from now.  Unless someone else takes care of this, the fix is likely to
get dropped on the floor.

Do you really think that getting this fix into 2.4 should be delayed
like that?  Please note that the patch affects error path only and that
without the patch things misbehave badly whenever the error occurs.
I really don't think the patch can make things worse, even if it were
buggy (although it's been tested with the error path triggered
specifically on 2.4).

Alexander
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] loop.c: kernel_thread() retval check
    • From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] loop.c: kernel_thread() retval check
    • From: Solar Designer <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] loop.c: kernel_thread() retval check
    • From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: 2.6.18-rc4-mm2
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] set*uid() must not fail-and-return on OOM/rlimits
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] loop.c: kernel_thread() retval check
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] loop.c: kernel_thread() retval check
• 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]