Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/5] NLM: Have lockd call try_to_freeze | Date | Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:59:08 +0100 |
| |
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
| |