Commit 9fc53ff2 authored by NeilBrown's avatar NeilBrown Committed by Greg Kroah-Hartman

staging: lustre: use explicit poll loop in ptlrpc_unregister_reply

replace l_wait_event() with wait_event_idle_timeout() and explicit
loop.  This approach is easier to understand.
Reviewed-by: default avatarJames Simmons <jsimmons@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarNeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: default avatarPatrick Farrell <paf@cray.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarGreg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
parent 0a0e5afc
......@@ -2500,7 +2500,6 @@ static int ptlrpc_unregister_reply(struct ptlrpc_request *request, int async)
{
int rc;
wait_queue_head_t *wq;
struct l_wait_info lwi;
/* Might sleep. */
LASSERT(!in_interrupt());
......@@ -2543,16 +2542,17 @@ static int ptlrpc_unregister_reply(struct ptlrpc_request *request, int async)
* Network access will complete in finite time but the HUGE
* timeout lets us CWARN for visibility of sluggish NALs
*/
lwi = LWI_TIMEOUT_INTERVAL(LONG_UNLINK * HZ,
HZ, NULL, NULL);
rc = l_wait_event(*wq, !ptlrpc_client_recv_or_unlink(request),
&lwi);
if (rc == 0) {
int cnt = 0;
while (cnt < LONG_UNLINK &&
(rc = wait_event_idle_timeout(*wq,
!ptlrpc_client_recv_or_unlink(request),
HZ)) == 0)
cnt += 1;
if (rc > 0) {
ptlrpc_rqphase_move(request, request->rq_next_phase);
return 1;
}
LASSERT(rc == -ETIMEDOUT);
DEBUG_REQ(D_WARNING, request,
"Unexpectedly long timeout receiving_reply=%d req_ulinked=%d reply_unlinked=%d",
request->rq_receiving_reply,
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment