Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:30:33 -0500 | From | Serge Hallyn <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |