Re: [PATCH] Rt-tester makes freezing processes fail.

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Friday 14 July 2006 01:37, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:18:43 +1000
> Nigel Cunningham <nigel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Compiling in the rt-tester currently makes freezing processes fail.
> > I don't think there's anything wrong with it running during
> > suspending, so adding PF_NOFREEZE to the flags set seems to be the
> > right solution.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Nigel Cunningham <nigel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> >  rtmutex-tester.c |    2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > diff -ruNp 9971-rt-tester.patch-old/kernel/rtmutex-tester.c 9971-rt-tester.patch-new/kernel/rtmutex-tester.c
> > --- 9971-rt-tester.patch-old/kernel/rtmutex-tester.c	2006-07-07 10:27:46.000000000 +1000
> > +++ 9971-rt-tester.patch-new/kernel/rtmutex-tester.c	2006-07-14 07:48:01.000000000 +1000
> > @@ -259,7 +259,7 @@ static int test_func(void *data)
> >  	struct test_thread_data *td = data;
> >  	int ret;
> >  
> > -	current->flags |= PF_MUTEX_TESTER;
> > +	current->flags |= PF_MUTEX_TESTER | PF_NOFREEZE;
> >  	allow_signal(SIGHUP);
> >  
> >  	for(;;) {
> 
> 
> I yesterday queued up the below patch.  Which approach is most appropriate?

I prefer the one that makes these threads freeze (ie. the Luca's patch).

Greetings,
Rafael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/