Re: [PATCH 1/2] freezer: add unsafe versions of freezable helpers

[Linus Torvalds]

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Colin Cross <ccross@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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
--
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/