[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070221145419.2f783dc3.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:54:19 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>,
<linux-usb-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@...hat.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] 2.6.20 kernel hang with USB drive and vfat
doing ftruncate
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:50:23 -0500 (EST)
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > + if ((gfp_mask & (__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO)) != (__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO)) {
>
> Is that really the correct test? I don't know enough about the memory
> management subsystem to say one way or the other. What's special about
> having both flags set?
yup. We're saying "if the caller is unable to take either IO locks or FS
locks, don't wait on FS or IO completion".
ie: don't wait on writeout progress unless we know that both the IO system
and the FS are able to make progress.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists