Re: [PATCH v5 08/35] lock_file(): always add lock_file object to lock_file_list

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Michael Haggerty wrote:

> The ambiguity didn't have any ill effects, because lock_file objects
> cannot be removed from the lock_file_list anyway.  But it is
> unnecessary to leave this behavior inconsistent.

Nit: commit messages usually use present tense for current behavior
(and imperative for the behavior after the patch).

More importantly, the above + the diffstat don't leave me very happy
about the change.

Can you spell out more about the intended effect?  E.g., is this about
making sure other code is appropriately exercised to tolerate the
signal handler even when there are a lot of errors (which should make
debugging easier) or something?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]