Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mail-ve0-f169.google.com ([209.85.128.169]:59323 "EHLO mail-ve0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756782Ab3EFV6c (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 May 2013 17:58:32 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1367615050-3894-1-git-send-email-ccross@android.com> <20130506065605.6e5ed5e2@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <20130506174336.447d0d75@tlielax.poochiereds.net> Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 14:58:31 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] freezer: add unsafe versions of freezable helpers From: Linus Torvalds To: Colin Cross Cc: Jeff Layton , lkml , Trond Myklebust , Len Brown , Pavel Machek , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , "J. Bruce Fields" , "David S. Miller" , Andrew Morton , Mandeep Singh Baines , Paul Walmsley , Al Viro , "Eric W. Biederman" , Oleg Nesterov , linux-nfs , Linux PM list , netdev , Tejun Heo , Ben Chan , Steve French Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Colin Cross wrote: >> >> There are many other possibilities for other codepaths that end up in >> wait_for_response(). Once we get a solution in place for NFS, we'll >> need to do something very similar for CIFS. > > Makes sense, I will add CIFS to the patch. Would you prefer it in the > same or separate patches. Quite frankly, is it worth resurrecting these patches at all? The only things it actually complained about are not worth the pain fixing and are getting explicitly not warned about - is there any reason to believe the patches are worth maintaining and the extra complexity is worth it? Linus