On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
<srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 12/05/2011 11:11 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
>> Hello, Srivatsa.
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 06:19:04PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>> So how about solving this problem more fundamentally, such as defining a
>>> freezable wrapper over kernel_recvmsg like:
>>>
>>> #define kernel_recvmsg_freezable(sock, msg, vec, num, size, flags) \
>>> ({ \
>>> kernel_recvmsg(sock, msg, vec, num, size, flags) \
>>> try_to_freeze(); \
>>> })
>>>
>>> and using it instead of kernel_recvmsg(), throughout the kernel?
>>>
>>> But kernel_recvmsg is an exported symbol. So if we are very very unwilling
>>> to change the kernel ABI, we could probably think about adding try_to_freeze()
>>> inside kernel_recvmsg itself,like this (but see below about my thoughts about
>>> which one is better):
>>
>> I don't necessarily object to introducing the wrapper but I don't
>> really think we should be doing s//g over the source tree without
>> understanding where it's actually necessary. For kernel threads and
>> user threads out of the signal delivery path, try_to_freeze() is an
>> exceptional event which introduces behavior which can be difficult to
>> reproduce track down and spreading it without actually knowing what
>> the surrounding code is doing doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
>>
>
>
> Yeah, I agree. But I remember seeing almost _exactly_ the same code
> as CIFS loop in some other place. I'll see if I can track it down and
> also understand if it might cause problems. If I find it to be worth it
> to use the same solution as above, I'll try adding the wrapper and using
> it there. Else, better to keep it as it is, as you mentioned. Thank you.
Agreed ...
--
Thanks,
Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
