On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 01:15:08PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 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.
>
Hmm doh, sorry about that the 2/2 patch of this series should be passing 0 not 1
since we need to be uninterruptible. I figured this sort of thing would be used
by fs's/device drivers where TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE is desired. If that is not
appropriate let me know and I can use TASK_KILLABLE or whatever else the
preference is. Thanks,
Josef
--
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
