2012/2/22 Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:32:58 +0300
> Pavel Shilovsky <piastry@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> to let us interrupt the proccess if the session went down and echo
>> is disabled.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Shilovsky <piastry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> fs/cifs/transport.c | 7 ++++++-
>> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/cifs/transport.c b/fs/cifs/transport.c
>> index fa93720..938d20b 100644
>> --- a/fs/cifs/transport.c
>> +++ b/fs/cifs/transport.c
>> @@ -257,6 +257,8 @@ smb_send(struct TCP_Server_Info *server, struct smb_hdr *smb_buffer,
>> static int
>> wait_for_free_request(struct TCP_Server_Info *server, const int long_op)
>> {
>> + int rc;
>> +
>> spin_lock(&server->req_lock);
>>
>> if (long_op == CIFS_ASYNC_OP) {
>> @@ -271,8 +273,11 @@ wait_for_free_request(struct TCP_Server_Info *server, const int long_op)
>> if (server->credits <= 0) {
>> spin_unlock(&server->req_lock);
>> cifs_num_waiters_inc(server);
>> - wait_event(server->request_q, get_credits(server) > 0);
>> + rc = wait_event_interruptible(server->request_q,
>> + get_credits(server) > 0);
>> cifs_num_waiters_dec(server);
>> + if (rc)
>> + return rc;
>> spin_lock(&server->req_lock);
>> } else {
>> if (server->tcpStatus == CifsExiting) {
>
> In general, I think making this interruptible is a good idea. The
> problem here though is that you're going to end up interrupting this on
> any signal. That includes stuff like SIGCHLD -- you don't necessarily
> want to interrupt this because the process forked off a child earlier
> and then that child exited...
>
> It's probably simpler to just make this a TASK_KILLABLE sleep for that
> reason, rather than trying to handle different signals differently.
>
Ok, good points - will change it.
--
Best regards,
Pavel Shilovsky.
--
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
