Re: [PATCH V2] poweroff: fix bug in orderly_poweroff

[Serge Hallyn]

Quoting Feng Hong (hongfeng@xxxxxxxxxxx):
> 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/