Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932495AbcDJUso (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:48:44 -0400 Received: from mail-io0-f182.google.com ([209.85.223.182]:34857 "EHLO mail-io0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932432AbcDJUsk (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:48:40 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 13:48:39 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ieFYhedcoBPSxt7hwhEiL3P6C7A Message-ID: Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 bug fixes for 4.6 From: Linus Torvalds To: Greg Thelen Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" , "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-fsdevel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 590 Lines: 17 On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > I think the right choice might be to > > (a) revert that patch (or just change the signal_pending() into > fatal_signal_pending()) > > (b) to get the latency advantage, do something like this: The attached patch is actually tested and seems to fix the issue. I do not have a good way to check the latency of signal delivery and I didn't check if the signal_pending() actually ever triggers, but your test-case that showed the problem before seems to be fine with it. Linus