Quoting Feng Hong ([email protected]):
> 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
