Re: [PATCH 4/5] vt: Update spawnpid to use a task_ref.

From: Eric W. Biederman
Date: Mon Jan 30 2006 - 15:38:32 EST


Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> writes:

> On Ne 29-01-06 00:33:27, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> This is a classic example of a random kernel subsystem
>> holding a pid for purposes of signalling it later.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> drivers/char/keyboard.c | 8 ++++----
>> drivers/char/vt_ioctl.c | 5 +++--
>> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> 7ed8301463a49ad03f8c9de2bbf8c41a5d9843ea
>> diff --git a/drivers/char/keyboard.c b/drivers/char/keyboard.c
>> index 8b603b2..4e1f2e0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/char/keyboard.c
>> +++ b/drivers/char/keyboard.c
>> @@ -109,7 +109,8 @@ struct kbd_struct kbd_table[MAX_NR_CONSO
>> static struct kbd_struct *kbd = kbd_table;
>> static struct kbd_struct kbd0;
>>
>> -int spawnpid, spawnsig;
>> +TASK_REF(spawnpid);
>
> Could we get some nicer syntax of declaration? This does not look like
> declaration, and looks ugly to my eyes.

Any suggestions?

Does
struct task_ref *spawnpid = &init_tref;

I modeled it after how we did this is done for lists.

Eric

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/