Re: [PATCH] slow_work_thread() should do the exclusive wait

David Howells
2009-04-13T21:41:53Z

Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com> 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