Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Mon, 30 Aug 2004 23:40:57 -0700 | | From | Andrew Morton <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] waitid system call |
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote: > > 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.
I don't think it matters much. Taking seven trips into the fault handler where one would do seems a bit dumb though. - 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/
|  |