On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:36:02 -0500
"Serge E. Hallyn" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Quoting Andrew Morton ([email protected]):
>
> > Again: why is this so hard? It shouldn't be. Perhaps because loop is
> > using completions in bizarre ways where it should be using
> > wake_up_process(), wait_event(), etc.
>
> Ah.
>
> wait_event() actually seems like the way to go - I'll try to follow the
> example in fs/ocfs2/journal.c.
I suspect quite a lot of changes to loop.c would fall out. For a start, in
a sufficiently-simplified implementation lo_pending would perhaps go away -
just test the NULLness of the top of the list of BIOs.
> Still I'd also like to patch kthread to correctly handle an already
> exited thread. Would that be acceptable, or is requiring the thread not
> to exit prematurely considered desirable?
That would seem sensible, but I don't immediately see how to do it
non-racily without changing the API or by adding a `struct completion' to
the task_struct. Because the task might be exitting-but-not-exitted, and
still using resources which the kthread_stop() caller wants to release.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
