On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 21:43:51 +0900 Tejun Heo <htejun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 09:58:33AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > >> +int poll_schedule_timeout(struct poll_wqueues *pwq, int state, > >> + ktime_t *expires, unsigned long slack) > > > > All callers of poll_schedule() and poll_schedule_timeout() pass > > TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. We can elide the 'state' argument. > > Well, I wanted to keep it as to keep it more consistent with other > schedule() functions but both Miklos and you don't seem to like it, so I > might as well just drop it. Andrew, what do you think? I guess that if any poll/select syscall were to sleep in uninterruptible state, people would get upset about the effect upon their load average and we'd have to go in and fix it. So, yup, I expect that hard-coding TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE would be OK. -- 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
