[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080113065453.4774f8dd@tleilax.poochiereds.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 06:54:53 -0500
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, neilb@...e.de,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] NLM: Have lockd call try_to_freeze
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:01:34 -0500
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com> wrote:
> lockd makes itself freezable, but never calls try_to_freeze(). Have it
> call try_to_freeze() within the main loop.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
> ---
> fs/lockd/svc.c | 3 +++
> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/lockd/svc.c b/fs/lockd/svc.c
> index 82e2192..6ee8bed 100644
> --- a/fs/lockd/svc.c
> +++ b/fs/lockd/svc.c
> @@ -155,6 +155,9 @@ lockd(struct svc_rqst *rqstp)
> long timeout = MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT;
> char buf[RPC_MAX_ADDRBUFLEN];
>
> + if (try_to_freeze())
> + continue;
> +
> if (signalled()) {
> flush_signals(current);
> if (nlmsvc_ops) {
I was looking over svc_recv today and noticed that it calls
try_to_freeze a couple of times. Given that, the above patch may be
unnecessary. I don't think it hurts anything though. Should we keep
this patch or drop it?
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
--
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