On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 07:17:30AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > If a signal-callback (lwi_on_signal) is set without lwi_allow_intr, as > is the case in ldlm_completion_ast(), the behavior depends on the > timeout set. > > If a timeout is set, then signals are ignored. If the timeout is > reached, the timeout handler is called. If the timeout handler > return 0, which ldlm_expired_completion_wait() always does, the > l_wait_event() switches to exactly the behavior if no timeout was set. > > If no timeout is set, then "fatal" signals are not ignored. If one > arrives the callback is run, but as the callback is empty in this > case, that is not relevant. > > This can be simplified to: > if a timeout is wanted > wait_event_idle_timeout() > if that timed out, call the timeout handler > l_wait_event_abortable() > > i.e. the code always waits indefinitely. Sometimes it performs a > non-abortable wait first. Sometimes it doesn't. But it only > aborts before the condition is true if it is signaled. > This doesn't quite agree with the comments and debug messages. > > Now that we call the timeout handler (ldlm_expired_completion_wait()) > wait directly, we can pass the two args directly rather then > using a special-purpose struct. > > Reviewed-by: Patrick Farrell <[email protected]> > Reviewed-by: James Simmons <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <[email protected]> > --- > > Patrick discovered a bug in v1, which this v2 fixes. > > Greg - do you need me to resend the whole series, or are you ok with > taking this replacement in the rest of the original series?
I can take this replacement, thanks. greg k-h
