Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 13 Jan 2008 06:54:53 -0500 | From | Jeff Layton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/5] NLM: Have lockd call try_to_freeze |
| |
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?
-- Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
| |