lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/5] NLM: Have lockd call try_to_freeze
On Sunday January 13, jlayton@redhat.com wrote:
> 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?

I would suggest dropping it.
Having unnecessary code is likely to be confusing.

NeilBrown


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-13 23:27    [W:0.060 / U:1.936 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site