> Rather an using l_wait_event(), use wait_event_idle_timeout()
> with an explicit loop so it is easier to see what is happening.

Reviewed-by: James Simmons <[email protected]>
 
> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <[email protected]>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/service.c |   15 ++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/service.c 
> b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/service.c
> index 5c41297d23d2..6e3403417434 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/service.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/service.c
> @@ -2618,7 +2618,7 @@ ptlrpc_service_unlink_rqbd(struct ptlrpc_service *svc)
>  {
>       struct ptlrpc_service_part *svcpt;
>       struct ptlrpc_request_buffer_desc *rqbd;
> -     struct l_wait_info lwi;
> +     int cnt;
>       int rc;
>       int i;
>  
> @@ -2658,12 +2658,13 @@ ptlrpc_service_unlink_rqbd(struct ptlrpc_service *svc)
>                        * the HUGE timeout lets us CWARN for visibility
>                        * of sluggish LNDs
>                        */
> -                     lwi = LWI_TIMEOUT_INTERVAL(
> -                                     LONG_UNLINK * HZ,
> -                                     HZ, NULL, NULL);
> -                     rc = l_wait_event(svcpt->scp_waitq,
> -                                       svcpt->scp_nrqbds_posted == 0, &lwi);
> -                     if (rc == -ETIMEDOUT) {
> +                     cnt = 0;
> +                     while (cnt < LONG_UNLINK &&
> +                            (rc = wait_event_idle_timeout(svcpt->scp_waitq,
> +                                                          
> svcpt->scp_nrqbds_posted == 0,
> +                                                          HZ)) == 0)
> +                             cnt ++;
> +                     if (rc == 0) {
>                               CWARN("Service %s waiting for request 
> buffers\n",
>                                     svcpt->scp_service->srv_name);
>                       }
> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to