On Sunday January 13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:01:34 -0500
> Jeff Layton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > ---
> > 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
