Jens & Kent,
On 01/05/2018 08:05 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 12/30/17 4:09 PM, Michael Lyle wrote:
>> +void __closure_sync(struct closure *cl)
>> +{
>> + struct closure_syncer s = { .task = current };
>>
>> + cl->s = &s;
>> + continue_at(cl, closure_sync_fn, NULL);
>> +
>> + while (1) {
>> + __set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
>> + smp_mb(); /* Ensure task state set before load of done flag */
>
> That's why we have set_current_state().
>
I wrote the comment in question-- it seemed like to me set_current_state
and a store w/ barrier, but I was nervous since I didn't write the code
that there might be another dependency/reason.
Kent-- is there any reason to not just set_current_state(...)?
Thanks,
Mike
