From 9fc53ff230aae24136ce7740606cca1f59432ebe Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: NeilBrown Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:47:59 +1100 Subject: [PATCH] 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: James Simmons Signed-off-by: NeilBrown Reviewed-by: Patrick Farrell Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/client.c | 14 +++++++------- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/client.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/client.c index f70176c6db08..ffdd3ffd62c6 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/client.c +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/client.c @@ -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, -- 2.30.2