[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20071024211140.329fdd90.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:11:40 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] Add lock_page_killable
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:24:57 -0400 Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx> wrote:
> and associated infrastructure such as sync_page_killable and
> fatal_signal_pending. Use lock_page_killable in do_generic_mapping_read()
> to allow us to kill `cat' of a file on an NFS-mounted filesystem.
whoa, big change.
What exactly are the semantics here? If the process has actually been
killed (ie: we know that userspace won't be running again) then we break
out of a lock_page() and allow the process to exit? ie: it's basically
invisible to userspace?
If so, it sounds OK. I guess. We're still screwed if the process is doing
a synchronous write and lots of other scenarios.
How well has this been tested?
Have the NFS guys had a think about it?
Why does it return -EIO from read() and not -EINTR?
-
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