On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 1:17 PM Christian Brauner <christ...@brauner.io> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 01:15:25PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 06:08:28PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote: > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > + if (!result) > > > > > + result = -ENOENT; > > > > > + > > > > > + put_pid(struct_pid); > > > > > > > > so on error you would put_pid twice which seems odd.. I would suggest, > > > > don't > > > > release the pid ref from within pidfd_create_fd, release the ref from > > > > the > > > > caller. Speaking of which, I added to my list to convert the pid->count > > > > to > > > > refcount_t at some point :) > > > > > > as i said, pidfd_create_fd takes its own reference > > > > Oh. That was easy to miss. Fair enough. I take that comment back. > > > > Please also reply to the other comments I posted, thanks. Generally on LKML, > > I have seen there is an expectation to reply to all reviewer's review > > comments even if you agree with them. This helps keep the review going > > smoothly. Just my 2 cents. > > I tend to do it in multiple mails depending on whether or not I need to > think about a comment or not.
Ok, that's also fine with me. thanks, - Joel
