On Sunday January 13, jlayton@redhat.com wrote:
quoted text
> 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.

NeilBrown
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/