From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Stewart-Gallus Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ipc/mqueue.c: Drag unneeded code out of locks Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 04:42:34 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: References: <20141111162146.6e72c3fb0858df4945096c47@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: Content-disposition: inline Content-language: en In-reply-to: <20141111162146.6e72c3fb0858df4945096c47@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso , Manfred Spraul , "J. Bruce Fields" , Doug Ledford , linux-newbie@vger.kernel.org Hello, thank you for the criticism. > It's probably better to do this as three or four separate patches. Really? Alright if you insist I'll do the next version as multiple patches. > Well yes, that's what EMFILE means but "too_many_open_files" doesn't > make sense in this context! Fair enough, I'll rename it in the next version. > Thatsabug. It only requires CAP_SYS_RESOURCE if we're trying with > queues_count >= queues_max. Right, that was dumb of me. > This test isn't really needed. I don't follow. If the queue creation is not rejected then the resource user has to be accounted for right? And we can't add the resource to accounting if it is not created right? Thank you, Steven Stewart-Gallus