On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 08:04:47AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 09:48:51AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 09:28:30PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > interruptible_sleep_on_locked() is just an open-coded > > > wait_event_interruptible_timeout() with a few assumptions since we know > > > we hold the BKL. locks_block_on_timeout() is only used in one place, so > > > it's actually simpler to inline it into its caller. > > > > Makes sense, thanks. So the assumption we were depending on the BKL for > > was that we could count on the wake-up not coming till after we block, > > so we could skip a check ->fl_next that's normally needed to resolve the > > usual sleeping-on-some-condition race? > > That's right. OK, thanks, applied just with the "few assumptions" replaced by a description of that particular problem: "interruptible_sleep_on_locked() is just an open-coded wait_event_interruptible_timeout(), with the one difference that interruptible_sleep_on_locked() doesn't bother to check the condition on which it waits, depending instead on the BKL to avoid the case where it blocks after the wakeup has already been called. locks_block_on_timeout() is only used in one place, so it's actually simpler to inline it into its caller." Pending locks patches available from: git://linux-nfs.org/~bfields/linux.git locks --b. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
