Hi!
> > 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.
You only want to use _unsafe() variants when you enter refrigerator
with locks held.
And entering refrigerator with locks is tricky... and unsafe :-). It
is not directly related to killability.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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
