On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 03:08:19PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> -static int __sched do_nanosleep(struct hrtimer_sleeper *t, enum hrtimer_mode mode)
> +static int __sched do_nanosleep(struct hrtimer_sleeper *t, enum hrtimer_mode mode,
> + int interruptible)
> {
> hrtimer_init_sleeper(t, current);
>
> do {
> - set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> + set_current_state(interruptible ? TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE :
> + TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
I don't see any users (in this patch or the next) of people wanting
uninterruptible nanosleeps. We shouldn't be introducing new
TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE users, but instead using TASK_KILLABLE if the user
really can't cope with signals in a sensible manner.
--
Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
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
