Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] make setpriority POSIX compliant; introduce PRIO_THREAD extension | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:19:35 +0200 |
| |
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.
| |