Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Sun, 13 Jan 2008 06:54:53 -0500 | | From | Jeff Layton <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/5] NLM: Have lockd call try_to_freeze |
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:01:34 -0500
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.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@redhat.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@redhat.com>
|  |