Hello,
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 03:14:33PM -0800, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
> @@ -2067,9 +2067,10 @@ int cgroup_attach_proc(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct task_struct *leader)
> read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
>
> /* methods shouldn't be called if no task is actually migrating */
> - retval = 0;
> - if (!group_size)
> + if (!group_size) {
> + retval = 0;
> goto out_free_group_list;
> + }
Eh... I don't think this is an improvement. It's just different.
> @@ -2126,20 +2127,20 @@ int cgroup_attach_proc(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct task_struct *leader)
> */
> synchronize_rcu();
> cgroup_wakeup_rmdir_waiter(cgrp);
> - retval = 0;
> + flex_array_free(group);
> + return 0;
Hmm... maybe goto out_free_group_list? Duplicating cleanup on success
and failure paths can lead future updaters forget one of them. The
exit path in this function isn't pretty but I don't think the proposed
patch improves it either.
Thanks.
--
tejun
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
