Re: [PATCH v3] lockdep: check that no locks held at freeze time

[Ingo Molnar]

* Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 11:37:19 AM Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > We shouldn't try_to_freeze if locks are held. Verified that
> > > I get no lockdep warnings after applying this patch and
> > > "vfork: don't freezer_count() for in-kernel users of CLONE_VFORK".
> > > 
> > > Changes since v1:
> > > * LKML: <20130215111635.GA26955@xxxxxxxxx> Ingo Molnar
> > >   * Added a msg string that gets passed in.
> > > * LKML: <20130215154449.GD30829@xxxxxxxxxx> Oleg Nesterov
> > >   * Check PF_NOFREEZE in try_to_freeze().
> > > Changes since v2:
> > > * LKML: <20130216170605.GC4910@xxxxxxxxxx> Oleg Nesterov
> > >   * Avoid unnecessary PF_NOFREEZE check when !CONFIG_LOCKDEP.
> > > * Mandeep Singh Baines
> > >   * Generalize an exit specific printk.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > CC: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > CC: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > CC: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
> > > CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Looks good to me now.
> > 
> > Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Which tree should this go through?
> 
> Well, I can take it if that's OK.

Sure, that's fine with me - this is mainly a freezer feature 
after all.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/