)]}'
{
  "commit": "df94f000c46c055cf439f5b92807cd827557ffbc",
  "tree": "c3b224d3ae7c07a5edc3fc804a6d91c8cbdd5cc1",
  "parents": [
    "2de59872a7842143f4507832e7c1f5123c47feb7"
  ],
  "author": {
    "name": "Jeff Layton",
    "email": "jlayton@redhat.com",
    "time": "Tue Dec 23 15:21:33 2008 -0500"
  },
  "committer": {
    "name": "Trond Myklebust",
    "email": "Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com",
    "time": "Tue Dec 23 15:21:33 2008 -0500"
  },
  "message": "lockd: convert reclaimer thread to kthread interface\n\nMy understanding is that there is a push to turn the kernel_thread\ninterface into a non-exported symbol and move all kernel threads to use\nthe kthread API. This patch changes lockd to use kthread_run to spawn\nthe reclaimer thread.\n\nI\u0027ve made the assumption here that the extra module references taken\nwhen we spawn this thread are unnecessary and removed them. I\u0027ve also\nadded a KERN_ERR printk that pops if the thread can\u0027t be spawned to warn\nthe admin that the locks won\u0027t be reclaimed.\n\nIn the future, it would be nice to be able to notify userspace that\nlocks have been lost (probably by implementing SIGLOST), and adding some\ngood policies about how long we should reattempt to reclaim the locks.\n\nFinally, I removed a comment about memory leaks that I believe is\nobsolete and added a new one to clarify the result of sending a SIGKILL\nto the reclaimer thread. As best I can tell, doing so doesn\u0027t actually\ncause a memory leak.\n\nI consider this patch 2.6.29 material.\n\nSigned-off-by: Jeff Layton \u003cjlayton@redhat.com\u003e\nSigned-off-by: Trond Myklebust \u003cTrond.Myklebust@netapp.com\u003e\n",
  "tree_diff": [
    {
      "type": "modify",
      "old_id": "8307dd64bf46ca746d9c973f209626de49627d17",
      "old_mode": 33188,
      "old_path": "fs/lockd/clntlock.c",
      "new_id": "94d42cc4e3939002def673653f356be80538fe88",
      "new_mode": 33188,
      "new_path": "fs/lockd/clntlock.c"
    }
  ]
}