From: Jeff Layton Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] NLM: Have lockd call try_to_freeze Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 06:54:53 -0500 Message-ID: <20080113065453.4774f8dd@tleilax.poochiereds.net> References: <1199988096-19700-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> <1199988096-19700-2-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> <1199988096-19700-3-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> <1199988096-19700-4-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, neilb@suse.de, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Layton Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:38968 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750818AbYAMLzA (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Jan 2008 06:55:00 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1199988096-19700-4-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:01:34 -0500 Jeff Layton 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 > --- > 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