From: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
To: Andrei Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
Cc: autofs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@microsoft.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] autofs4: use wake_up() instead of wake_up_interruptible
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2018 09:31:09 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ebdc431d-cea8-378c-aae5-3b7441bb93c0@themaw.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180331022839.21277-1-avagin@openvz.org>
On 31/03/18 10:28, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> In "autofs4: use wait_event_killable", wait_event_interruptible() was
> replaced by wait_event_killable(), but in this case we have to use
> wake_up() instead of wake_up_interruptible().
Why do you believe wake_up() is needed rather than wake_up_interruptible()?
Now that I'm thinking about the wake up I'm wondering if this is in fact
what's needed. Rather, I think maybe wake_up_all() is probably the only
one that will actually do what's needed.
There's an individual wait queue for each mount, there can be multiple
waiters for a mount, they all should be woken up when the daemon signals
mount completion.
>
> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@microsoft.com>
> Cc: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> Signed-off-by: Andrei Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
> ---
> fs/autofs4/waitq.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
> index c160e9b3aa0f..be9c3dc048ab 100644
> --- a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
> +++ b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
> @@ -549,7 +549,7 @@ int autofs4_wait_release(struct autofs_sb_info *sbi, autofs_wqt_t wait_queue_tok
> kfree(wq->name.name);
> wq->name.name = NULL; /* Do not wait on this queue */
> wq->status = status;
> - wake_up_interruptible(&wq->queue);
> + wake_up(&wq->queue);
> if (!--wq->wait_ctr)
> kfree(wq);
> mutex_unlock(&sbi->wq_mutex);
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-01 1:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-31 2:28 [PATCH] autofs4: use wake_up() instead of wake_up_interruptible Andrei Vagin
2018-04-01 1:31 ` Ian Kent [this message]
2018-04-01 2:01 ` Ian Kent
2018-04-01 6:21 ` Andrei Vagin
2018-04-02 23:39 ` Ian Kent
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ebdc431d-cea8-378c-aae5-3b7441bb93c0@themaw.net \
--to=raven@themaw.net \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=autofs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=avagin@openvz.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mawilcox@microsoft.com \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).