Re: [PATCH 06/16] freezer: make exiting tasks properly unfreezable

[Tejun Heo]

Hello, Rafael.

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:09:38PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > One thing I'm curious about is how many drivers do we have left which
> > depend on freezer as opposed to implementing proper quiescing
> > mechanism using PM hooks?  Are there still a lot left?
> 
> There is a number of drivers that use freezable workqueues and that's
> prefectly valid in my view.  Beyond that, may suspend/resume routines
> depend on the freezer to some extent, because they assume that user
> space won't talk to the driver while they are being run.
> 
> Do you mean any other kind of dependence?

I still feel a bit unsure about depending on freezer as escaping them
unintentionally seems a bit too easy (e.g. schedule_work() for delayed
processing) and as drivers need to implement responses to PM events
anyway, I think implementing the support explicitly has lesser chance
of causing obscure bugs which are difficult to reproduce.  Anyways,
something to discuss some other day, I guess.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/