From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030476AbWF1H77 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jun 2006 03:59:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030478AbWF1H77 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jun 2006 03:59:59 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:13525 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030476AbWF1H76 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jun 2006 03:59:58 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 09:55:11 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Andrew Morton Cc: Zou Nan hai , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Patch] jbd commit code deadloop when installing Linux Message-ID: <20060628075511.GA11948@elte.hu> References: <1151470123.6052.17.camel@linux-znh> <20060627234005.dda13686.akpm@osdl.org> <20060628063859.GA9726@elte.hu> <20060627235500.8c2c290e.akpm@osdl.org> <1151473582.6052.28.camel@linux-znh> <20060628004029.efcc8a03.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060628004029.efcc8a03.akpm@osdl.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamScore: 0.1 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=0.1 required=5.9 tests=AWL,BAYES_50 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 0.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5102] 0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Andrew Morton wrote: > > However I think cond_resched_lock and cond_resched_softirq also need fix > > to make the semantic consistent. > > > > Please check the following patch. > > > > Ah. I think the return value from these functions should mean > "something disruptive happened", if you like. > > See, the callers of cond_resched_lock() aren't interested in whether > cond_resched_lock() actually called schedule(). They want to know > whether cond_resched_lock() dropped the lock. Because if the lock was > dropped, the caller needs to take some special action, regardless of > whether schedule() was finally called. indeed ...! > So I think the patch I queued is OK, agree? yeah. i think the really-right-fix would be to get rid of that SYSTEM_BOOTING ugliness though ... I'm quite a bit uneasy about us doing different things for an initrd app than for fully booted apps. Ingo