On 02/06/2015 11:50 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-02-05 16:45:50 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I propose the attached, which pulls all the wait-retry logic up to
secure_read() and secure_write(). This makes the code a lot more
understandable.
Generally a good idea. Especially if we get m
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> It simplifies the code to do all the sleeping and interrupt handling code in
> the upper level, in secure_[read|write]. Do you see a problem with it?
Not directly. Reading the code I got uneasy with the fact that we fact
unconditionally th
On 2015-02-05 16:45:50 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Looking again at the code after Andres' interrupt-handling patch series, I
> got confused by the fact that there are several wait-retry loops in
> different layers, and reading and writing works slightly differently.
They don't really work
On 02/06/2015 10:38 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Looking again at the code after Andres' interrupt-handling patch series, I
got confused by the fact that there are several wait-retry loops in
different layers, and reading and writing works
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Looking again at the code after Andres' interrupt-handling patch series, I
> got confused by the fact that there are several wait-retry loops in
> different layers, and reading and writing works slightly differently.
>
> I propose the atta
Looking again at the code after Andres' interrupt-handling patch series,
I got confused by the fact that there are several wait-retry loops in
different layers, and reading and writing works slightly differently.
I propose the attached, which pulls all the wait-retry logic up to
secure_read()
