On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 06:44:41PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > I'm still not getting what the problem is. AFAICS file operations are > > either > > > > a) non-interruptible but finish within a short time or > > b) may block indefinitely but are interruptible (or at least killable). > > > > Anything else is already problematic, resulting in processes "stuck in > > D state". > > Welcome to reality... > > * bread() is non-interruptible > * so's copy_from_user()/copy_to_user() And why should revoke(2) care? Just wait for the damn thing to finish. Why exactly do these need to be interruptible? Okay, if we want revoke or umount -f to be instantaneous then all that needs to be taken care of. But does it *need* to be? My idea of revoke is something like below: - make sure no new operations are started on the file - check state of tasks for ongoing operations, if interruptible send signal - wait for all pending operations to finish - kill file Thanks, Miklos -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
