Re: + exec-allow-core_pipe-recursion-check-to-look-for-a-value-of-1-rather -than-0.patch added to -mm tree

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:22:39 -0500
Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 06:58:52PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 01/27, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > Currently only d_coredump() needs this new feature, but please note
> > > that ____call_usermodehelper() was already "uglified" for the coredumping
> > > over the pipe.
> > >
> > > If we add sub_info->finit(), then probably we should move the code
> > > under "if (sub_info->stdin)" from ____call_usermodehelper() to
> > > core_pipe_setup() ?
> > 
> > And, perhaps, we should not change call_usermodehelper() and all its
> > callers? If the caller needs ->finit() it can customize subprocess_info
> > like call_usermodehelper_pipe() already does?
> > 
> > To clarify, I don't have a "strong" opinion, I am just asking.
> > 
> I'm not opposed to that, Since Andew has already taken these patches, I'll
> tinkier to see how such an implementation change looks, and post some follow on
> patches if it seems good.  I'll clean up the comments while I'm at it.
> 

The patch conflicts a bit with Andi's
sysctl-add-call_usermodehelper_cleanup.patch so I dropped v1 of
exec-allow-core_pipe-recursion-check-to-look-for-a-value-of-1-rather-than-0.patch