From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH fwd] poll: allow f_op->poll to sleep Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 10:53:56 -0800 Message-ID: <20081122105356.87856d04.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20081122123942.GF5707@parisc-linux.org> <4927FE87.6050005@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Miklos Szeredi , arjan@linux.intel.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, hch@infradead.org, mingo@elte.hu, rminnich@sandia.gov, ericvh@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:59446 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751030AbYKVSyV (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Nov 2008 13:54:21 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4927FE87.6050005@gmail.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 21:43:51 +0900 Tejun Heo wrote: > Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 09:58:33AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > >> +int poll_schedule_timeout(struct poll_wqueues *pwq, int state, > >> + ktime_t *expires, unsigned long slack) > > > > All callers of poll_schedule() and poll_schedule_timeout() pass > > TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. We can elide the 'state' argument. > > Well, I wanted to keep it as to keep it more consistent with other > schedule() functions but both Miklos and you don't seem to like it, so I > might as well just drop it. Andrew, what do you think? I guess that if any poll/select syscall were to sleep in uninterruptible state, people would get upset about the effect upon their load average and we'd have to go in and fix it. So, yup, I expect that hard-coding TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE would be OK.