Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Sat, 29 Jul 2006 10:37:04 +0100 | | From | Russell King <> | | Subject | Re: [KJ] audit return code handling for kernel_thread [2/11] |
| |
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 04:07:13PM -0400, nhorman@tuxdriver.com wrote: > Audit/Cleanup of kernel_thread calls, specifically checking of return codes. > Problems seemed to fall into 3 main categories: > > 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.
This is inconsistent with your assertion that pid 0 "is/should be valid" above. If you want '0' to mean "not valid" then it's not a valid return value from kernel_thread() (and arguably that's true, since pid 0 is permanently allocated to the idle thread.)
I don't particularly care whether you decide to that returning pid 0 from kernel_thread is valid or not, just that your two points above are at least consistent with each other.
-- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core - 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/
|  |