Re: [PATCH 0/23] File descriptor hot-unplug support v2

[Miklos Szeredi]

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 06:44:41PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> 
> > I'm still not getting what the problem is.  AFAICS file operations are
> > either
> > 
> >  a) non-interruptible but finish within a short time or
> >  b) may block indefinitely but are interruptible (or at least killable).
> > 
> > Anything else is already problematic, resulting in processes "stuck in
> > D state".
> 
> Welcome to reality...
> 
> * bread() is non-interruptible
> * so's copy_from_user()/copy_to_user()

And why should revoke(2) care?  Just wait for the damn thing to
finish.  Why exactly do these need to be interruptible?

Okay, if we want revoke or umount -f to be instantaneous then all that
needs to be taken care of.  But does it *need* to be?

My idea of revoke is something like below:

  - make sure no new operations are started on the file
  - check state of tasks for ongoing operations, if interruptible send signal
  - wait for all pending operations to finish
  - kill file

Thanks,
Miklos
--
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/