From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Subject: Re: [PATCH] SCHED: remove proliferation of wait_on_bit action functions. Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 17:06:10 +0100 Message-ID: <30769.1399997170@warthog.procyon.org.uk> References: <20140501123738.3e64b2d2@notabene.brown> Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140501123738.3e64b2d2@notabene.brown> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: NeilBrown Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Peter Zijlstra , Oleg Nesterov , Steven Whitehouse , dm-devel@redhat.com, Chris Mason , Josef Bacik , Steve French , Theodore Ts'o , Trond Myklebust , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: dm-devel.ids NeilBrown wrote: > The wait_on_bit() call in __fscache_wait_on_invalidate() was ambiguous > as it specified TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE but used > fscache_wait_bit_interruptible as an action function. > As any error return is never checked I assumed that 'uninterruptible' > was correct. Bug. It should be uninterruptible in both places. David -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:2658 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751198AbaEMQGx (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 May 2014 12:06:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20140501123738.3e64b2d2@notabene.brown> References: <20140501123738.3e64b2d2@notabene.brown> To: NeilBrown Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Peter Zijlstra , Oleg Nesterov , Steven Whitehouse , dm-devel@redhat.com, Chris Mason , Josef Bacik , Steve French , "Theodore Ts'o" , Trond Myklebust , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] SCHED: remove proliferation of wait_on_bit action functions. From: David Howells Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 17:06:10 +0100 Message-ID: <30769.1399997170@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: NeilBrown wrote: > The wait_on_bit() call in __fscache_wait_on_invalidate() was ambiguous > as it specified TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE but used > fscache_wait_bit_interruptible as an action function. > As any error return is never checked I assumed that 'uninterruptible' > was correct. Bug. It should be uninterruptible in both places. David