lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Sep]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH V2] poweroff: fix bug in orderly_poweroff
Quoting Feng Hong (hongfeng@marvell.com):
> Hi, Serge,
>
> I am just a graduate and it's my first time to send a patch to opensource, so thank you very much for reminding me the "changelog affairs", it seems this patch has been added to -mm tree as attached mail, and I have no chance to change the comments, right ? Then I must remember this and be careful next time. Thanks again for reminding me !

Sorry, your description was fine, what i meant was something below your
patch description that looks like

Change since v1:
[date] Per Eric's sugestion, switch from UMH_WAIT_PROC to UMH_WAIT_EXEC.

> >Is this actually sufficient for you? The exec will have started, but may for whatever (very unlikely) reason fail. If you're happy with it,
> I think UMH_WAIT_EXEC is sufficient for me, as in our system there is no "/sbin/poweroff" existed. On the other hand, UMH_WAIT_PROC is not suitable here as Eric analysis; if using UMH_WAIT_EXEC, and the user application fail, I'd prefer to complain bad application. So using UMH_WAIT_EXEC and UMH_WAIT_PROC has a tradeoff here, what do you think so ?

Yup, that sounds fine to me, I just wanted to make sure you were ok with the
fact that application failure (after successful exec) will be ignored.

thanks,
-serge


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-09-21 18:21    [W:0.215 / U:0.700 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site