[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4620A13F.6060502@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:39:11 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: Milind Arun Choudhary <milindchoudhary@...il.com>
CC: kernel-janitors@...ts.osdl.org, nfs@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
trond.myklebust@....uio.no
Subject: Re: [KJ][PATCH 03/04]use set_current_state in fs
Milind Arun Choudhary a écrit :
> use set_current_state(TASK_*) instead of current->state = TASK_*, in fs/nfs
>
> Signed-off-by: Milind Arun Choudhary <milindchoudhary@...il.com>
>
>
> ---
> idmap.c | 4 ++--
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfs/idmap.c b/fs/nfs/idmap.c
> index 9d4a6b2..054ca15 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/idmap.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/idmap.c
> @@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ nfs_idmap_id(struct idmap *idmap, struct idmap_hashtable *h,
> set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> mutex_unlock(&idmap->idmap_im_lock);
> schedule();
> - current->state = TASK_RUNNING;
> + set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> remove_wait_queue(&idmap->idmap_wq, &wq);
> mutex_lock(&idmap->idmap_im_lock);
Probably a dumb question, so please forgive me.
Why are you forcing a memory barrier here, (and also on your other patches).
Is'nt a __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING); appropriate ?
-
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