From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S932070AbWFTXMV@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932070AbWFTXMV (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Tue, 20 Jun 2006 19:12:21 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932088AbWFTXMV
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Tue, 20 Jun 2006 19:12:21 -0400
Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:62172 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932070AbWFTXMU (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 20 Jun 2006 19:12:20 -0400
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:15:24 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com>
Cc: pwil3058@bigpond.net.au, nagar@watson.ibm.com, sekharan@us.ibm.com,
       jtk@us.ibm.com, balbir@in.ibm.com, jes@sgi.com,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stern@rowland.harvard.edu,
       lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] [PATCH 09/11] Task watchers: Add support for
 per-task watchers
Message-Id: <20060620161524.7c132eea.akpm@osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <1150844177.21787.774.camel@stark>
References: <20060613235122.130021000@localhost.localdomain>
	<1150242901.21787.149.camel@stark>
	<44978793.8070109@bigpond.net.au>
	<1150844177.21787.774.camel@stark>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.0 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-vine-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > > +static inline int notify_per_task_watchers(unsigned int val,
> > > +					   struct task_struct *task)
> > > +{
> > > +	if (get_watch_event(val) != WATCH_TASK_INIT)
> > > +		return raw_notifier_call_chain(&task->notify, val, task);
> > > +	RAW_INIT_NOTIFIER_HEAD(&task->notify);
> > > +	if (task->real_parent)
> > > +		return raw_notifier_call_chain(&task->real_parent->notify,
> > > +		   			       val, task);
> > > +}
> > 
> > It's possible for this task to exit without returning a result.
> 
> Assuming you meant s/task/function/:
> 
> 	In the common case this will return a result because most tasks have a
> real parent. The only exception should be the init task. However, the
> init task does not "fork" from another task so this function will never
> get called with WATCH_TASK_INIT and the init task.
> 
> 	This means that if one wants to use per-task watchers to associate data
> and a function call with *every* task, special care will need to be
> taken to register with the init task.

no......

It's possible for this function to fall off the end without returning
anything.  The compiler should have spat a warning.