* Colin Cross <ccross@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> NFS calls the freezable helpers with locks held, which is unsafe
> and caused lockdep warnings when 6aa9707 "lockdep: check that no
> locks held at freeze time" was applied (reverted in dbf520a).
> Add new *_unsafe versions of the helpers that will not run the
> lockdep test when 6aa9707 is reapplied, and call them from NFS.
>
> Signed-off-by: Colin Cross <ccross@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/nfs/inode.c | 2 +-
> fs/nfs/nfs3proc.c | 2 +-
> fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 4 ++--
> include/linux/freezer.h | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> net/sunrpc/sched.c | 2 +-
> 5 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfs/inode.c b/fs/nfs/inode.c
> index 1f94167..53cbee5 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/inode.c
> @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ int nfs_wait_bit_killable(void *word)
> {
> if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> return -ERESTARTSYS;
> - freezable_schedule();
> + freezable_schedule_unsafe();
I'd suggest naming such variants _unkillable() instead of _unsafe().
There's nothing inherently 'unsafe' about it: the user asked for a hard
NFS mount and is getting it: with the side effect that it exposes the
machine to network delays in a 'hard' way as well. Which means suspend may
block indefinitely as well on network failure.
So it's two conflicting user requirements: 'hard NFS mount' and 'suspend
now'. We pick the lesser evil, the requirement that is considered higher
prio: the hard NFS mount in this case.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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
