On Tuesday 12 May 2009, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 12 May 2009 00:44:36 +0200 > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Which means this patch: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124165031723627 (it also is my favourite > > one). > > ho hum, I could live with that ;) > > Would it make sense to turn it into something more general? Instead of > "tasks_frozen/processes_are_frozen()", present it as > "oom_killer_disabled/oom_killer_is_disabled()"? > > That would invite other subsystems to use it, if they want to. Which > might well be a bad thing on their behalf, hard to say.. I chose the names this way because the variable is defined in the freezer code. Alternatively, I can define one in page_alloc.c, add [disable|enable]_oom_killer() for manipulating it and call them from the freezer code. Do you think that would be better? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
