Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 11 Jul 2019 09:30:13 -0500
From:   David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] dlm updates for 5.3
Message-ID: <20190711143013.GA29395@redhat.com>
References: <20190709165725.GA2190@redhat.com>
 <CAHk-=wj00gDz=tX-b5C-xwdogZSaKtRJEDh3SGB69D8W+Wsr2Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wj00gDz=tX-b5C-xwdogZSaKtRJEDh3SGB69D8W+Wsr2Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 09:05:21PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> If wait_event_interruptible() returns -ERESTARTSYS, it means that we
> have a signal pending.
> 
> And if we have a signal pending, then you can't go back and call
> wait_event_interruptible() in a loop, because the signal will
> *continue* to be pending, so now your "wait event" becomes a kernel
> busy loop.
> 
> If you don't want to react to signals, then you shouldn't use the
> "interruptible()" version of wait-event.

Right, a simple wait_event looks obvious; I'll have the submitters test
that before sending that next time around.  I'll put together another pull
with the two trivial commits.
Thanks
Dave