|
From: Philippe W. <phi...@sk...> - 2012-10-24 19:22:46
|
On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 18:22 +0200, Petar Jovanovic wrote: > Hey Philippe, Hello Petar, > how about adding a patch like this one on the top of it? This patch is for sure a further improvement, worth to commit. (even if a fully correct implementation implies more logic, for example, the 2nd argument of semctl is ignored if the 3rd argument is GETALL). => might be worth to keep the comment that the PRE_REG_READx are still (at least sometimes) too simplistic. Thanks Philippe |