[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <32260.1239658818@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:40:18 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Serge Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>,
Steve Dickson <steved@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Daire Byrne <Daire.Byrne@...mestore.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slow_work_thread() should do the exclusive wait
Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com> wrote:
> Should that really be TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE? I don't see anything obvious
> in the enclosing for(;;) loop that checks for or handles signals...
If it were TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, it would sit there in the D-state when not
doing anything. I must admit, I thought I was calling daemonize(), but that
seems to have got lost somewhere.
David
--
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