From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263478AbTDSWGi (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Apr 2003 18:06:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263479AbTDSWGi (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Apr 2003 18:06:38 -0400 Received: from hera.cwi.nl ([192.16.191.8]:47099 "EHLO hera.cwi.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263478AbTDSWGh (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Apr 2003 18:06:37 -0400 From: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 00:18:36 +0200 (MEST) Message-Id: To: aebr@win.tue.nl, akpm@digeo.com Subject: Re: Private namespaces Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > How does this look? Ach - just a moment ago I submitted only that single improvement, but you do the whole list. (It is OK, of course. I looked for a second and concluded that in all other cases the return value was in fact -ENOMEM, so that no change was required. Only in the case of security_task_alloc() is a different value, -EPERM, likely.) Concerning style - I don't like if ((retval = copy_sighand(clone_flags, p))) very much. Where there is an if() one expects a boolean condition, and in superficial reading one can easily mistake = for ==, in spite of the additional parentheses. Just retval = copy_sighand(clone_flags, p); if (retval) is so much clearer. Andries