Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 22:37:36 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Alex Lyashkov <shadow@psoft.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: possible kernel bug in signal transit.
Message-Id: <20040313223736.25735f2c.akpm@osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <1079245606.8186.51.camel@berloga.shadowland>
References: <1079197336.13835.15.camel@berloga.shadowland>
	<20040313171856.37b32e52.akpm@osdl.org>
	<1079239159.8186.24.camel@berloga.shadowland>
	<20040313210051.6b4a2846.akpm@osdl.org>
	<1079241668.8186.33.camel@berloga.shadowland>
	<20040313214700.387c4ff3.akpm@osdl.org>
	<1079243761.8186.46.camel@berloga.shadowland>
	<20040313220901.64dcd003.akpm@osdl.org>
	<1079245606.8186.51.camel@berloga.shadowland>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 945
Lines: 22

Alex Lyashkov <shadow@psoft.net> wrote:
>
> __ ______, 14.03.2004, __ 08:09, Andrew Morton __________:
> > Alex Lyashkov <shadow@psoft.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well we can only return one error code.  Or are you suggesting that we
> > >  > should terminate the loop early on error?  If so, why?
> > >  You say me can return _last_ error core. but this function return
> > >  _first_. 
> > 
> > It doesn't matter, really.  Other parts of the kernel will generally return
> > the first-encountered error because at times it _does_ matter.  But here it
> > doesn't.
> okey. second question.
> a really need extra variable instead change conditions in return ?

I think it's clearer that way, don't you?
-
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/