All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
To: nhorman@tuxdriver.com
Cc: kernel-janitors@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	paulus@au.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [KJ] audit return code handling for kernel_thread [1/11]
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 23:49:01 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <44CAA26D.7030809@yahoo.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200607282007.k6SK75MK009573@ra.tuxdriver.com>

nhorman@tuxdriver.com wrote:
> Audit/Cleanup of kernel_thread calls, specifically checking of return codes.
>     Problems seemed to fall into 3 main categories:
>     

Thanks for doing this. Nitpick: this should be all one patch, or at most 3
patches (then each of the below 3 items would become individual changelogs).

Each patch should have a unique changelog, each should have a unique subject
(sans the sequence number).

cc'ing Andrew is also a good idea, if you want them to get merged ;)

One coding style comment:
if (...)
     multi line
         statement

Could use braces around the outermost if statement, for clarity.


>     1) callers of kernel_thread were inconsistent about meaning of a zero return
>     code.  Some callers considered a zero return code to mean success, others took
>     it to mean failure.  a zero return code, while not actually possible in the
>     current implementation, should be considered a success (pid 0 is/should be
>     valid). fixed all callers to treat zero return as success
>     
>     2) caller of kernel_thread saved return code of kernel_thread for later use
>     without ever checking its value.  Callers who did this tended to assume a
>     non-zero return was success, and would often wait for a completion queue to be
>     woken up, implying that an error (negative return code) from kernel_thread could
>     lead to deadlock.  Repaired by checking return code at call time, and setting
>     saved return code to zero in the event of an error.
>     
>     3) callers of kernel_thread never bothered to check the return code at all.
>     This can lead to seemingly unrelated errors later in execution.  Fixed by
>     checking return code at call time and printing a warning message on failure.

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 

_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
To: nhorman@tuxdriver.com
Cc: kernel-janitors@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	paulus@au.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [KJ] audit return code handling for kernel_thread [1/11]
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 09:49:01 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <44CAA26D.7030809@yahoo.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200607282007.k6SK75MK009573@ra.tuxdriver.com>

nhorman@tuxdriver.com wrote:
> Audit/Cleanup of kernel_thread calls, specifically checking of return codes.
>     Problems seemed to fall into 3 main categories:
>     

Thanks for doing this. Nitpick: this should be all one patch, or at most 3
patches (then each of the below 3 items would become individual changelogs).

Each patch should have a unique changelog, each should have a unique subject
(sans the sequence number).

cc'ing Andrew is also a good idea, if you want them to get merged ;)

One coding style comment:
if (...)
     multi line
         statement

Could use braces around the outermost if statement, for clarity.


>     1) callers of kernel_thread were inconsistent about meaning of a zero return
>     code.  Some callers considered a zero return code to mean success, others took
>     it to mean failure.  a zero return code, while not actually possible in the
>     current implementation, should be considered a success (pid 0 is/should be
>     valid). fixed all callers to treat zero return as success
>     
>     2) caller of kernel_thread saved return code of kernel_thread for later use
>     without ever checking its value.  Callers who did this tended to assume a
>     non-zero return was success, and would often wait for a completion queue to be
>     woken up, implying that an error (negative return code) from kernel_thread could
>     lead to deadlock.  Repaired by checking return code at call time, and setting
>     saved return code to zero in the event of an error.
>     
>     3) callers of kernel_thread never bothered to check the return code at all.
>     This can lead to seemingly unrelated errors later in execution.  Fixed by
>     checking return code at call time and printing a warning message on failure.

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 

  parent reply	other threads:[~2006-07-28 23:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-07-28 20:07 [KJ] audit return code handling for kernel_thread [1/11] nhorman
2006-07-28 20:07 ` nhorman
2006-07-28 20:07 ` [KJ] audit return code handling for kernel_thread [2/11] nhorman
2006-07-28 20:07   ` nhorman
2006-07-29  9:37   ` Russell King
2006-07-29  9:37     ` Russell King
2006-07-29 13:00     ` Neil Horman
2006-07-29 13:00       ` Neil Horman
2006-07-29 13:14     ` Neil Horman
2006-07-29 13:14       ` Neil Horman
2006-07-29 13:55       ` Neil Horman
2006-07-29 13:55         ` Neil Horman
2006-07-29 14:50       ` Russell King
2006-07-29 14:50         ` Russell King
2006-07-29 18:59         ` Neil Horman
2006-07-29 18:59           ` Neil Horman
2006-07-28 20:07 ` [KJ] audit return code handling for kernel_thread [3/11] nhorman
2006-07-28 20:07   ` nhorman
2006-07-28 20:07 ` [KJ] audit return code handling for kernel_thread [4/11] nhorman
2006-07-28 20:07   ` nhorman
2006-07-28 20:07 ` [KJ] audit return code handling for kernel_thread [5/11] nhorman
2006-07-28 20:07   ` nhorman
2006-07-28 20:07 ` [KJ] audit return code handling for kernel_thread [6/11] nhorman
2006-07-28 20:07   ` nhorman
2006-07-28 20:07 ` [KJ] audit return code handling for kernel_thread [7/11] nhorman
2006-07-28 20:07   ` nhorman
2006-07-28 20:07 ` [KJ] audit return code handling for kernel_thread [8/11] nhorman
2006-07-28 20:07   ` nhorman
2006-07-29 16:17   ` Stefan Richter
2006-07-29 16:17     ` Stefan Richter
2006-07-28 20:08 ` [KJ] audit return code handling for kernel_thread [9/11] nhorman
2006-07-28 20:08   ` nhorman
2006-07-28 20:08 ` [KJ] audit return code handling for kernel_thread [10/11] nhorman
2006-07-28 20:08   ` nhorman
2006-07-28 20:08 ` [KJ] audit return code handling for kernel_thread [11/11] nhorman
2006-07-28 20:08   ` nhorman
2006-07-28 23:49 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2006-07-28 23:49   ` [KJ] audit return code handling for kernel_thread [1/11] Nick Piggin
2006-07-28 23:52   ` Neil Horman
2006-07-28 23:52     ` Neil Horman

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=44CAA26D.7030809@yahoo.com.au \
    --to=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
    --cc=kernel-janitors@osdl.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
    --cc=paulus@au.ibm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.