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

[Jeff Layton]

On Mon, 6 May 2013 14:58:31 -0700
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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

Well, these problems are worth the pain of fixing, I think. It's just
going to take us a while to get there since it involves some
significant surgery.

As to whether the warnings themselves are worthwhile now that we're
excluding the most egregious offenders from them, I don't much care
either way.

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
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/