Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753336Ab3C0Oev (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:34:51 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:52109 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751643Ab3C0Oet (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:34:49 -0400 Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:34:47 +0100 From: Jan Kara To: Marco Stornelli Cc: Jan Kara , Linux FS Devel , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: [RFC] fsfreeze: moving from uniterruptible to killable Message-ID: <20130327143447.GB1771@quack.suse.cz> References: <514EC323.7050002@gmail.com> <20130326211520.GF2082@quack.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1216 Lines: 28 On Wed 27-03-13 12:39:10, Marco Stornelli wrote: > 2013/3/26 Jan Kara : > > On Sun 24-03-13 10:10:59, Marco Stornelli wrote: > >> When a fs is frozen, a process can hang because we wait in > >> uniterruptible state. We give the user the possibility to kill the process. > > Yes, but it needs slightly more work as you probably know... (bailing out > > properly when the signal arrives). > > > > Honza > > > > Of course, indeed, it was only an RFC to start a discussion, not a > patch :) The point was: is this kind of change a behaviour that can > break user-space in some way? IMHO no, but I'd like to have a > discussion about that before to start coding. What do you think? Killable wait is almost always safe WRT to userspace breakage. In this case I cannot see how it could matter. That's why I agree it's a good thing to do. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/