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

[Colin Cross]

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:58 PM, 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?

There was at least one real other case caught when this patch was
applied: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/4/390.  Tejun asked that I
resurrect it because I'm adding some additional APIs similar to
freezable_schedule() and he wanted to make sure they didn't get used
improperly in the future.
--
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/