From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756021Ab0A0VXA (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:23:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751864Ab0A0VW7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:22:59 -0500 Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:57781 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751395Ab0A0VW6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:22:58 -0500 Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:22:39 -0500 From: Neil Horman To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, abelay@mit.edu, benh@kernel.crashing.org, drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com, gregkh@suse.de, jmoskovc@redhat.com, menage@google.com, mfasheh@suse.com, mingo@redhat.com, neilb@suse.de, shemminger@linux-foundation.org, spock@gentoo.org, t.sailer@alumni.ethz.ch, takedakn@nttdata.co.jp, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk Subject: Re: + exec-allow-core_pipe-recursion-check-to-look-for-a-value-of-1-rather -than-0.patch added to -mm tree Message-ID: <20100127212239.GA15052@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> References: <201001262354.o0QNsBiM029772@imap1.linux-foundation.org> <20100127174706.GA6333@redhat.com> <20100127175852.GA7511@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100127175852.GA7511@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 06:58:52PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 01/27, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > Currently only d_coredump() needs this new feature, but please note > > that ____call_usermodehelper() was already "uglified" for the coredumping > > over the pipe. > > > > If we add sub_info->finit(), then probably we should move the code > > under "if (sub_info->stdin)" from ____call_usermodehelper() to > > core_pipe_setup() ? > > And, perhaps, we should not change call_usermodehelper() and all its > callers? If the caller needs ->finit() it can customize subprocess_info > like call_usermodehelper_pipe() already does? > > To clarify, I don't have a "strong" opinion, I am just asking. > I'm not opposed to that, Since Andew has already taken these patches, I'll tinkier to see how such an implementation change looks, and post some follow on patches if it seems good. I'll clean up the comments while I'm at it. Thanks! Neil