From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753154AbZDMVlx (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:41:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751689AbZDMVln (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:41:43 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:42981 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751368AbZDMVlm (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:41:42 -0400 Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <1239649429.16771.9.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> References: <1239649429.16771.9.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <20090413181733.GA10424@redhat.com> To: Trond Myklebust Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Oleg Nesterov , Andrew Morton , Serge Hallyn , Steve Dickson , Al Viro , Daire Byrne , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] slow_work_thread() should do the exclusive wait Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:40:18 +0100 Message-ID: <32260.1239658818@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Trond Myklebust wrote: > Should that really be TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE? I don't see anything obvious > in the enclosing for(;;) loop that checks for or handles signals... If it were TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, it would sit there in the D-state when not doing anything. I must admit, I thought I was calling daemonize(), but that seems to have got lost somewhere. David