![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 11:04:46PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> + /*> + * For a WNOHANG return, clear out all the fields
> + * we would set so the user can easily tell the
> + * difference.> + */> + if (!retval)> + retval = put_user(0, &infop->si_signo);
> + if (!retval)> + retval = put_user(0, &infop->si_errno);
> + if (!retval)> + retval = put_user(0, &infop->si_code);> + if (!retval)> + retval = put_user(0, &infop->si_pid);> + if (!retval)> + retval = put_user(0, &infop->si_uid);> + if (!retval)> + retval = put_user(0, &infop->si_status);
Is it really necessary to check the exit code after each put_user?
if (!retval && access_ok(VERIFY_WRITE, infop, sizeof(*infop)))) {
retval = __put_user(0, &infop->si_signo);
retval |= __put_user(0, &infop->si_errno);
retval |= __put_user(0, &infop->si_code);
retval |= __put_user(0, &infop->si_pid);
retval |= __put_user(0, &infop->si_uid);
retval |= __put_user(0, &infop->si_status);
}
is what kernel usually does when filling multiple structure members.
Jakub
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:05 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||