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

But adding a comment instead of it won't hurt, IMHO. :-)

Greetings,
Rafael


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-14 00:59    [W:0.039 / U:2.584 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site