Re: [PATCH 3/5] NLM: Have lockd call try_to_freeze

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Sunday, 13 of January 2008, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Sunday January 13, jlayton@redhat.com wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:01:34 -0500
> > Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > lockd makes itself freezable, but never calls try_to_freeze(). Have it
> > > call try_to_freeze() within the main loop.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > >  fs/lockd/svc.c |    3 +++
> > >  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/fs/lockd/svc.c b/fs/lockd/svc.c
> > > index 82e2192..6ee8bed 100644
> > > --- a/fs/lockd/svc.c
> > > +++ b/fs/lockd/svc.c
> > > @@ -155,6 +155,9 @@ lockd(struct svc_rqst *rqstp)
> > >  		long timeout = MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT;
> > >  		char buf[RPC_MAX_ADDRBUFLEN];
> > >  
> > > +		if (try_to_freeze())
> > > +			continue;
> > > +
> > >  		if (signalled()) {
> > >  			flush_signals(current);
> > >  			if (nlmsvc_ops) {
> > 
> > 
> > I was looking over svc_recv today and noticed that it calls
> > try_to_freeze a couple of times. Given that, the above patch may be
> > unnecessary. I don't think it hurts anything though. Should we keep
> > this patch or drop it?
> 
> I would suggest dropping it.
> Having unnecessary code is likely to be confusing.

But adding a comment instead of it won't hurt, IMHO. :-)

Greetings,
Rafael