[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 15:53:32 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Nathan Lynch
<ntl@...ox.com>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Oren Laadan
<orenl@...columbia.edu>,
Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>,
Glauber
Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
James Bottomley <jbottomley@...allels.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] fs, proc: Introduce the /proc/<pid>/map_files/
directory v6
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 02:42:34 +0400
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:
> > > +err:
> > > + up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0; i < used && !ret; i++) {
> >
> > The "&& !ret" is unneeded?
>
> No, it's needed, since it makes sure that if "impossible"
> scenario happens and flex-arrays fails with preallocated
> data so we will reach this point with used > 0 and ret = -ENOMEM
> and thus will not call for proc_map_files_instantiate as needed.
Well, it doesn't need to be tested on each pass around the loop - that's
misleading and inefficient (unless the compiler is being particularly clever).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
