Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754523AbXIKOlR (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:41:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752023AbXIKOlI (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:41:08 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:43392 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752014AbXIKOlH (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:41:07 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:39:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" cc: Nigel Cunningham , nigel@suspend2.net, LKML , Pavel Machek , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix failure to resume from initrds. In-Reply-To: <200709111523.33968.rjw@sisk.pl> Message-ID: References: <200709111354.25689.nigel@nigel.suspend2.net> <200709111355.07369.rjw@sisk.pl> <200709111512.35348.rjw@sisk.pl> <200709111523.33968.rjw@sisk.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 665 Lines: 20 On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Anyway, yes, init is freezable, but should it be? > > > > I mean, shouldn't we rather add PF_NOFREEZE to kernel_init()? > > Argh, no. PF_NOFREEZE is inherited by the children. Umm. All of this is __init code - why is freezability even an issue? We shouldn't be suspending at this point anyway afaik.. Is suspend2 perhaps doing something different here? Linus - 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/