lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] make setpriority POSIX compliant; introduce PRIO_THREAD extension
    From
    Date
    On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 17:08 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    > On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 16:42 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
    > > On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 16:12 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
    > > > Patch is run tested. I will post test program etc as a reply.
    > >
    > > Looks like Evolution word-wrapped the patch. Let me try again.
    >
    > Patch looks simple enough, although a few comments below.
    > Also, I guess the glibc people (Ulrich added to CC) might have an
    > opinion.
    >
    > > Signed-off-by: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>
    > > --

    > > + case PRIO_PROCESS:
    > > + if (who)
    > > + pid = find_vpid(who);
    > > + else {
    > > + pid = task_pid(current);
    > > + who = current->pid;
    > > + }
    > > + do_each_pid_thread(pid, PIDTYPE_PID, p) {
    > > + if (who == p->pid || who == p->tgid) {
    > > + error = set_one_prio(p, niceval, error);
    > > + }
    > > + } while_each_pid_thread(pid, PIDTYPE_PID, p);
    >
    > I worry about destroying the return value here, support one thread
    > fails, but the next succeeds, should we still report failure?

    Ok - got fooled by this funny set_one_prio() function. It passes the old
    error value and maintains it if no new error occurs (except for -ESRCH,
    but I guess people know wth they're doing).

    So I'll retract my concern.



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-09-01 17:23    [W:0.034 / U:0.168 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site