Re: [RFC] TASK_KILLED

2007-08-30 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 09:11:37AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c > > index 507ddff..29e3f21 100644 > > --- a/fs/read_write.c > > +++ b/fs/read_write.c > > @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ Einval: > > > > static void wait_on_retry_sync_kiocb(struct kiocb *ioc

Re: [RFC] TASK_KILLED

2007-08-30 Thread Trond Myklebust
On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 14:40 -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > I've long hated the non-killability of tasks accessing a dead > NFS server. Linus had an idea for fixing this way back in 2002: > http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0208.0/0167.html which > I've prototyped in this patch. > > Sp

Re: [RFC] TASK_KILLED

2007-08-29 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > I've long hated the non-killability of tasks accessing a dead > NFS server. Linus had an idea for fixing this way back in 2002: > http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0208.0/0167.html which > I've prototyped in this patch. Hey, I obviousl

[RFC] TASK_KILLED

2007-08-29 Thread Matthew Wilcox
I've long hated the non-killability of tasks accessing a dead NFS server. Linus had an idea for fixing this way back in 2002: http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0208.0/0167.html which I've prototyped in this patch. Splitting up TASK_* into separate bits is going to need a lot more aud