Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx): > From: Dan Smith <danms@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Changes: > - Update to match UTS changes > > Signed-off-by: Dan Smith <danms@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Oren Laadan <orenl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serue@xxxxxxxxxx> However... > + if (!!ipc_ns ^ !(flags & CLONE_NEWIPC)) > + return -EINVAL; Every time I see this I have to think about whether it is right or not. I'm not sure whether it's worth commenting (at each such meme) that CLONE_NEWIPC only needed to be set the first time we ran across that ipcns, or whether it's indicative that there is a simpler way the code could be done. But if it just took me a twice-over to see that it's right, when I'd already confirmed that with the CLONE_NEWUTS version last week, then a fresh reviewer will be cursing your name... -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
