xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 3.14-rc2 XFS backtrace because irqs_disabled.

To: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 3.14-rc2 XFS backtrace because irqs_disabled.
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 08:19:12 -0800
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20140214161623.GU18016@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20140212040358.GA25327@xxxxxxxxxx> <20140212042215.GN18016@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20140212054043.GB13997@dastard> <CA+55aFxy2t7bnCUc-DhhxYxsZ0+GwL9GuQXRYtE_VzqZusmB9A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20140212113928.GO18016@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CA+55aFywwx0Q8xK2GJiRJ+FV7PQEKoBRxDUxW4052FVyd5XOpg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20140212211421.GP18016@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CA+55aFyobyUNFo=3rpdbxTqgV7OQetCKbCfwEEbgxUcT-1+30w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20140214161302.GA16416@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20140214161623.GU18016@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 04:16:24PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> > All of these have in common that they try to handle signals in a kernel
> > thread (which we don't even allow by default), and that they ignore the
> > siginfo.  I think they could mostly be replaced by an addition to the
> > kthread API to allow a kthread to be killed by signals for legacy
> > reasons.
> 
> FWIW, there's a funny situation - all users of dequeue_signal_lock()
> actually ignore info completely.  I'm not saying that we ought to
> stop returning it, but e.g. jbd part of that patch is simply

Might aswell stick the discmiss into what was dequeue_signal_lock().
Which at that point should get a saner name (maybe thread_dequeue_signal ?)
and lose all argument except maybe task_struct - not that it's
nessecary, but it would mirror the other functions usually used around
it.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>