From: Ric Wheeler Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add timeout feature Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:06:10 -0400 Message-ID: <48DBFD42.6030307@redhat.com> References: <20080908205337t-sato@mail.jp.nec.com> <20080908171119.GB22521@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andrew Morton , Oleg Nesterov , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "dm-devel@redhat.com" , "viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk" , "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" , "xfs@oss.sgi.com" , "axboe@kernel.dk" , "mtk.manpages@googlemail.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" To: Christoph Hellwig , Takashi Sato Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:39341 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754321AbYIYVGx (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:06:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080908171119.GB22521@infradead.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 08:53:37PM +0900, Takashi Sato wrote: > >> The timeout feature is added to "freeze ioctl" to solve a deadlock >> when the freezer accesses a frozen filesystem. And new ioctl >> to reset the timeout period is added to extend the timeout period. >> For example, the freezer resets the timeout period to 10 seconds every 5 >> seconds. In this approach, even if the freezer causes a deadlock by >> accessing the frozen filesystem, it will be solved by the timeout >> in 10 seconds and the freezer will be able to recognize that >> at the next reset of timeout period. >> > > And as with all previous posting I still fundamentally disagree about > the need of this functionality. We don't need a timeout for freezing. > > I agree with Christoph here, I think that the timeout is unneeded. Regards, Ric