Am Dienstag, den 22.09.2020, 20:38 +0900 schrieb Tetsuo Handa: > On 2020/09/22 20:21, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > There is no need for flush() to be uninterruptible. close(2) > > is allowed to return -EINTR. > > > > 30 seconds is quite long a time to sleep in an uninterruptible state. > > Change it to an interruptible sleep. > > Doesn't this conflict with > > Making the wait for IO interruptible would not solve the > issue. While it would avoid a hang, it would not allow any progress > and we would end up with an unclosable fd. > > in [RFC 2/7] ? I suggested killable version, for giving up upon SIGKILL > implies automatically closing fds by terminating that userspace process. No. That we state in an earlier patch that an issue needs a timeout instead of an interruptible sleep, does not mean that another issue could not be solved by using an interruptible sleep. Regards Oliver
