Ok. Peace.
> So we appear to now be getting signals. Fine, whats wrong with that signal
> blocking code ? And if that code is ok what the hell is going on. The
> two cases I re-enabled are both now (2.1.117) covered by that protection.
>
> I didnt just blunder into this. I did actually do my homework ...
To me it appeared very much like a blunder. When I looked at your changes
to the write code it because very obvious very immediately that it was
broken, and as such I assumed it was that you just were floundering around
like a beached whale.
Sadly, the obvious breakage wasn't the kind I could blame the problems on.
The obvious breakage is that even though you disabled the IS_SOFT testing
for pending signals, you didn't do the "current->state" thing right. Do
you now wonder why I thought you were just completely out to lunch?
However, it was very obvious that making current->state right could only
make matters worse, so I'm left with:
- I have broken code
- the fix I _can_ do is not going to fix what people report
- I'm in a code-freeze, and this guy who wrote obviously broken code has
been sending me these patches for NFS over TCP, I'm assuming this is
some half-assed attempt to fix something there.
In short, I may have over-reacted. Sorry. But I'm still going to revert
that, because right now 2.1.117 looked _very_ good, and whatever you say
about the current NFS, it is stable. It has one known (but yet
unexplained) bug with regards to O_APPEND, and it has nasty behaviour when
the NFS server doesn't reply, but it's certainly been stable for quite
some time.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html