Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:9803 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754640Ab1GLApb (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:45:31 -0400 Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:47:29 -0400 From: Jeff Layton To: Trond Myklebust Cc: bjschuma@netapp.com, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] NFS: Send SIGIO on lost locks Message-ID: <20110711204729.7f2433b4@corrin.poochiereds.net> In-Reply-To: <1310415144.12660.32.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> References: <1310407110-20600-1-git-send-email-bjschuma@netapp.com> <1310407110-20600-2-git-send-email-bjschuma@netapp.com> <20110711160851.13814fa1@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <1310415144.12660.32.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:12:24 -0400 Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 16:08 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:58:30 -0400 > > bjschuma@netapp.com wrote: > > > > > From: Bryan Schumaker > > > > > > If the client loses a lock, we send SIGIO to the application to notify > > > it. The application can then handle the error from there. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bryan Schumaker > > > > Would SIGLOST be a better choice? Linux hasn't supported that > > historically, but we could add it. > > SIGLOST is 'defined' in the kernel as follows: > > #define SIGIO 29 > #define SIGPOLL SIGIO > /* > #define SIGLOST 29 > */ > > IOW: it is synonymous with SIGPOLL and SIGIO. This explains Bryan's > choice. > > Cheers > Trond > Right. I just wonder whether we'd be better off making this a distinct signal with its own number. It seems like there would be value in being able to distinguish between SIGLOST and SIGIO. -- Jeff Layton