On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 04:59:49PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 07:09:30PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 07/29/2012 01:48 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 07:08:53PM -0400, Jim Rees wrote:
> > >> J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > >>
> > >> + if (1 != write(pipefd[1], "!", 1))
> > >> + printerr(2, "weird; maybe an interrupt?");
> > >>
> > >> Use Yoda conditions must we?
> > >
> > > Yeah, yeah. How about:
> > >
> > > static void something_changed(void)
> > > {
> > > - if (1 != write(pipefd[1], "!", 1))
> > > - printerr(2, "weird; maybe an interrupt?");
> > > + if (write(pipefd[1], "!", 1) != 1)
> > > + printerr(0, "%s writing to pipe", strerror(errno));
> > > }
> > >
> > > ?
> > Better... IMHO.. but what's going to mean when we see that in some log?
>
> Beats me.
Looking at it a little more: actually, if gssd is slow to process these
events then in theory they could pile up, and we could eventually get
EAGAIN/WOUDBLOCK.
Which wouldn't be a problem, except that now we're modifying errno in a
signal handler. So the signal handler should be saving and restoring
errno.
And also: I noticed one of the reasons gssd hasn't been completely
reliable for me is that we already have a printerr() in the signal
handler, and printerr() doesn't appear to be reentrant.
Eh, I'm leaning toward just using ppoll. According to the man page that
requires kernel >= 2.6.16, glibc >= 2.4. Is that OK?
--b.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
