Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161015AbbKSPtr (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Nov 2015 10:49:47 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:35588 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030292AbbKSPtn (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Nov 2015 10:49:43 -0500 Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 16:49:41 +0100 (CET) From: Jiri Kosina X-X-Sender: jkosina@pobox.suse.cz To: Evgeniy Polyakov cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , GregKH Subject: Re: [PATCH] w1: w1_process() is not freezable kthread In-Reply-To: <215991446730430@web4m.yandex.ru> Message-ID: References: <2428911445956236@web17h.yandex.ru> <215991446730430@web4m.yandex.ru> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1101 Lines: 33 On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > > I fail to see why this kthread should be freezable at all. There is no way > > for w1 device to generate new I/O requests that should be written out to > > filesystem, is it? > > w1 doesn't generate such requests, but it was more to make this thread > consistent with majority of other threads in the kernel. Most of which actually don't need freezer at all, and only contribute to the overall confusion regarding what kthread freezer is actually for. It's my long-term goal to fix this situation (and this patch is part of some preparatory steps :) ). > Ok, I'm not against it, Greg please pull this patch into your tree. > > Acked-by: Evgeniy Polyakov Greg, do you plan to take this please? I don't seem to see it in linux-next as of today. Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs -- 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/