[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1619059904-56371-1-git-send-email-zhouchuangao@vivo.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 19:51:44 -0700
From: zhouchuangao <zhouchuangao@...o.com>
To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: zhouchuangao <zhouchuangao@...o.com>
Subject: [PATCH] fs/nfs: Use fatal_signal_pending instead of signal_pending.
We set the state of the current process to TASK_KILLABLE via
prepare_to_wait(). Should we use fatal_signal_pending() to detect
the signal here?
Signed-off-by: zhouchuangao <zhouchuangao@...o.com>
---
fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 10 +++++-----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
index c65c4b4..127be294 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
@@ -1681,13 +1681,13 @@ static void nfs_set_open_stateid_locked(struct nfs4_state *state,
rcu_read_unlock();
trace_nfs4_open_stateid_update_wait(state->inode, stateid, 0);
- if (!signal_pending(current)) {
+ if (!fatal_signal_pending(current)) {
if (schedule_timeout(5*HZ) == 0)
status = -EAGAIN;
else
status = 0;
} else
- status = -EINTR;
+ status = -ERESTARTSYS;
finish_wait(&state->waitq, &wait);
rcu_read_lock();
spin_lock(&state->owner->so_lock);
@@ -3457,8 +3457,8 @@ static bool nfs4_refresh_open_old_stateid(nfs4_stateid *dst,
write_sequnlock(&state->seqlock);
trace_nfs4_close_stateid_update_wait(state->inode, dst, 0);
- if (signal_pending(current))
- status = -EINTR;
+ if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
+ status = -ERESTARTSYS;
else
if (schedule_timeout(5*HZ) != 0)
status = 0;
@@ -3467,7 +3467,7 @@ static bool nfs4_refresh_open_old_stateid(nfs4_stateid *dst,
if (!status)
continue;
- if (status == -EINTR)
+ if (status == -ERESTARTSYS)
break;
/* we slept the whole 5 seconds, we must have lost a seqid */
--
2.7.4
Powered by blists - more mailing lists