On 01/04/18 09:31, Ian Kent wrote: > On 31/03/18 10:28, Andrei Vagin wrote: >> In "autofs4: use wait_event_killable", wait_event_interruptible() was >> replaced by wait_event_killable(), but in this case we have to use >> wake_up() instead of wake_up_interruptible(). > > Why do you believe wake_up() is needed rather than wake_up_interruptible()? > > Now that I'm thinking about the wake up I'm wondering if this is in fact > what's needed. Rather, I think maybe wake_up_all() is probably the only > one that will actually do what's needed.
Ok, so that 1 is the number of exclusive waiters. So what is the difference between the two wake_up calls in this case? > > There's an individual wait queue for each mount, there can be multiple > waiters for a mount, they all should be woken up when the daemon signals > mount completion. > >> >> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <mawil...@microsoft.com> >> Cc: Ian Kent <ra...@themaw.net> >> Cc: Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> >> Cc: Stephen Rothwell <s...@canb.auug.org.au> >> Signed-off-by: Andrei Vagin <ava...@openvz.org> >> --- >> fs/autofs4/waitq.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c >> index c160e9b3aa0f..be9c3dc048ab 100644 >> --- a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c >> +++ b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c >> @@ -549,7 +549,7 @@ int autofs4_wait_release(struct autofs_sb_info *sbi, >> autofs_wqt_t wait_queue_tok >> kfree(wq->name.name); >> wq->name.name = NULL; /* Do not wait on this queue */ >> wq->status = status; >> - wake_up_interruptible(&wq->queue); >> + wake_up(&wq->queue); >> if (!--wq->wait_ctr) >> kfree(wq); >> mutex_unlock(&sbi->wq_mutex); >> >
