On 02/03/2015 04:55 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 12:33:48PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
block/bsg.c- prepare_to_wait(&bd->wq_done, &wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
block/bsg.c- spin_unlock_irq(&bd->lock);
block/bsg.c: io_schedule();
block/bsg.c- finish_wait(&bd->wq_done, &wait);
Which is double buggy because:
1) it doesn't loop
2) it sets TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE _after_ testing for the sleep event.
OK, actually had a look at this one; it might be ok.
The spinlock might fully serialize the state so no fails, and the entire
function is called in a loop. Still seriously obtuse code.
Jens, would something like the below work for you?
Yes, from a cursory look, that seems fine to me. Though I will hold the
fact that you label my code as 'seriously obtuse' against you. Some day.
I can pull this in for testing for 3.20. Mind sending a properly
formatted patch (signed off, commit message, all that stuff)?
--
Jens Axboe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
