Boaz Harrosh wrote: > That's fine. I will fail totally gracefully, and nothing will happen. I like this > example if the system is under heavy load and there is no memory and the > iscsi auto-login takes more then 15 second (Settable by module param) then I'd > rather fail the login and revert to plain NFS-MDS IO, instead of the direct osd-target > IO. Believe me. So, race with timeout causes no inconsistency to the kernel. Then, it will be no problem to have timeout-able version. > >> I don't want any chance of D stating IO operations. > >> (My code is in the IO path, either fsync or write-back. There is not > >> always a killable target) > > > > Then, isn't UMH_NO_WAIT better than UMH_WAIT_PROC? > > > No I need to wait for the application to finish the iscsi login before > I can continue IO to the target. Otherwise what's the point. Your code which launches usermodehelper is in the I/O path, isn't it? Then, don't you need to use GFP_NOFS rather than GFP_KERNEL? http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd-cvs/2007-October/005937.html I'm not familiar with GFP_* flags usage. Can somebody clarify when we need to use GFP_NOFS rather than GFP_KERNEL by enumerating the name of function (e.g. xxxfs_writepage()) and/or the name of locks (e.g. xxx_mutex)? I've asked this in the past http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg30248.html but explanation with actual function/variable names is easier to understand. -- 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
