From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
Cc: Steve French <smfltc@us.ibm.com>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: filesystem signal handling
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 18:14:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1083172459.4694.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1083171946.2856.63.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 13:05 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 11:14, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> > NFS does this. It's fairly ugly. What would be a _lot_ nicer if we could
> > have something in the task_struct which is vaguely reminiscent of
> > preempt_count, only it counts the number of reasons why this task cannot
> > receive signals. So instead of using the TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE and
> > TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE states to make the decision, we'd look at the
> > task's uninterruptible_count instead.
>
> The reason NFS has the scheme that it does is precisely *because* we
> want to set our own sigmask.
>
> The reason is that we'd like to respect SIGINT, SIGQUIT and SIGKILL as
> signalling that the user wants to interrupt the operation if and only if
> the "intr" mount flag has been set.
Is there a benefit to having precisely this implementation, as opposed
to the option of allowing only fatal signals? What standard do we need
to adhere to?
--
dwmw2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-04-28 17:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-04-27 16:20 filesystem behavior when low on memory and PF_MEMALLOC Steve French
2004-04-27 19:09 ` Bryan Henderson
2004-04-27 20:29 ` filesystem signal handling Steve French
2004-04-28 15:14 ` David Woodhouse
2004-04-28 17:05 ` Trond Myklebust
2004-04-28 17:14 ` David Woodhouse [this message]
2004-04-28 17:32 ` Trond Myklebust
2004-04-28 19:28 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-04-28 19:43 ` Trond Myklebust
2004-04-28 19:47 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-04-28 20:31 ` Trond Myklebust
2004-04-29 2:18 ` David Woodhouse
2004-04-29 2:53 ` Trond Myklebust
2004-04-29 6:41 ` David Woodhouse
2004-04-29 17:41 ` Bryan Henderson
2004-04-28 21:46 ` Bryan Henderson
2004-04-29 2:34 ` David Woodhouse
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1083172459.4694.27.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=smfltc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).