lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] add hrtimer_sleep_ns helper function
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 01:36:57PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 03:22:16PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 01:15:08PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > I don't see any users (in this patch or the next) of people wanting
> > > uninterruptible nanosleeps. We shouldn't be introducing new
> > > TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE users, but instead using TASK_KILLABLE if the user
> > > really can't cope with signals in a sensible manner.
> >
> > Hmm doh, sorry about that the 2/2 patch of this series should be passing 0 not 1
> > since we need to be uninterruptible.
>
> I think that's taught us that '0' and '1' are insufficiently
> descriptive, and we should either be passing in a state (ie
> do_nanosleep(x, y, TASK_FOO), or have separate do_nanosleep_killable()
> and do_nanosleep_interruptible()).
>
> > I figured this sort of thing would be used
> > by fs's/device drivers where TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE is desired. If that is not
> > appropriate let me know and I can use TASK_KILLABLE or whatever else the
> > preference is. Thanks,
>
> We should be trying to accommodate the user's wishes wherever possible.
> If they say kill -9, they really mean it, and we should stop waiting.
> Now, I don't think we should abort the journal_stop(). That's probably
> going too far in this instance. But we should stop waiting for other
> tasks to join in, and finish up as quickly as possible.

Fair enough, I will make the changes in the next round, thanks much.

Josef


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-19 21:47    [W:0.041 / U:13.272 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site