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

[David Howells]

Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/