Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 01/11] Task watchers: Task Watchers | From | Matt Helsley <> | Date | Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:55:43 -0700 |
| |
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 19:19 -0500, Chase Venters wrote: > On Tuesday 13 June 2006 18:53, Matt Helsley wrote: > > > @@ -847,12 +848,15 @@ static void exit_notify(struct task_stru > > fastcall NORET_TYPE void do_exit(long code) > > { > > struct task_struct *tsk = current; > > struct taskstats *tidstats, *tgidstats; > > int group_dead; > > + int notify_result; > > > > profile_task_exit(tsk); > > + tsk->exit_code = code; > > + notify_result = notify_watchers(WATCH_TASK_EXIT, tsk); > > Are you using this specific return value?
Nope. I was wary of compiler warnings. I'll try removing this first assignment. However, the variable is necessary for another notify_watchers() call later in the function. I introduced it because I didn't think wrapping the function call like this:
WARN_ON(notify_watchers(WATCH_TASK_FREE, tsk) & NOTIFY_STOP_MASK);
would be very readable.
> > +int notify_watchers(unsigned long val, void *v) > > +{ > > + return atomic_notifier_call_chain(&task_watchers, val, v); > > +} > > Might this be called notify_task_watchers()?
Seems like a good idea. I'll make the necessary changes.
> Thanks, > Chase
Cheers, -Matt Helsley
- 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/
| |