Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757292AbXEIMHZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 May 2007 08:07:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755257AbXEIMHG (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 May 2007 08:07:06 -0400 Received: from hp3.statik.TU-Cottbus.De ([141.43.120.68]:33481 "EHLO hp3.statik.tu-cottbus.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753066AbXEIMHF (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 May 2007 08:07:05 -0400 Message-ID: <4641B92D.1030909@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 14:06:05 +0200 From: Stefan Richter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070222 SeaMonkey/1.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pavel Machek CC: akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, rjw@sisk.pl, James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com, aneesh.kumar@gmail.com, drzeus@drzeus.cx, dwmw2@infradead.org, ego@in.ibm.com, greg@kroah.com, mingo@elte.hu, neilb@suse.de, oleg@tv-sign.ru, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, vatsa@in.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 128/197] freezer: add try_to_freeze calls to all kernel threads References: <200705090934.l499YTvX019783@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> <4641A5F1.5080901@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <20070509104949.GA8164@elf.ucw.cz> In-Reply-To: <20070509104949.GA8164@elf.ucw.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1087 Lines: 25 Pavel Machek wrote: >> > Add try_to_freeze() calls to the remaining kernel threads that do not call >> > try_to_freeze() already, although they set PF_NOFREEZE. >> > >> > In the future we are going to replace PF_NOFREEZE with a set of flags that >> > will be set to indicate in which situations the task should not be frozen (for >> > example, there can be a task that should be frozen for the CPU hotplugging and >> > should not be frozen for the system suspend). [...] >> Why add no-op-try_to_freeze() everywhere now, instead of adding it later >> when it will actually be needed? (I.e. "in the future".) > > It is needed later in the patch series... for kprobes, etc. So does freezer_exempt() still do what its name says, or does it freezer_exempt_but_not_always() now? -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=== -=-= -=--= http://arcgraph.de/sr/ - 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/