Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261486AbTIXQYc (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:24:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261487AbTIXQYc (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:24:32 -0400 Received: from pix-525-pool.redhat.com ([66.187.233.200]:60047 "EHLO devserv.devel.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261486AbTIXQY3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:24:29 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 17:11:59 +0200 From: Arjan van de Ven To: Ian Kent Subject: Re: [PATCH] autofs4 deadlock during expire - kernel 2.6 Message-ID: <20030924171159.A7214@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <20030924155720.C31236@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from raven@themaw.net on Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 10:46:43PM +0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 795 Lines: 20 On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 10:46:43PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote: > The actual expire really needs to be interrutible. > I didn't like the idea that the additional waiters would be > uninterruptible but perhaps I have no choice. > > Given that do you think that using an interruptible_sleep_on for the > expire and a completion for the additional waiters could give an > acceptable solution? No... what happens if the person waking you does so inbetween the if ( wq->name ) { test and the interruptible_sleep_on(&wq->queue); .. ? - 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/