Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: Add comment explaining task state setting inbdi_forker_thread()

[Jan Kara]

On Sun 04-09-11 11:05:51, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > @@ -401,6 +401,13 @@ static int bdi_forker_thread(void *ptr)
> >  		}
> >  
> >  		spin_lock_bh(&bdi_lock);
> > +		/*
> > +		 * In the following loop we are going to check whether we have
> > +		 * some work to do without any synchronization with tasks
> > +		 * waking us up to do work for them. So we have to set task
> > +		 * state already here so that we don't miss wakeups coming
> 
> s/already/early/ ?
  Thanks for review. We'd have to substitute 'already here' with 'early'
for the sentence to make make sense. But frankly I don't see why one would
be better than the other one...

								Honza
> 
> Acked-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> > +		 * after we verify some condition.
> > +		 */
> >  		set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> >  
> >  		list_for_each_entry(bdi, &bdi_list, bdi_list) {
> > -- 
> > 1.7.1
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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/